Tuesday Night Open Mic for April 27, 2010

Tuesday night open mic is upon me again and I have plenty to say! I think you will be able to tell by what I have written on some of the subjects that I am a little testy today. Not in a bad way, but in my own way, which means that when I get testy I tend to get a bit blunt with what I am saying. For our topics we have a childish play on capital hill with Goldman executives, Banning toys in happy meals, Porn that I haven’t yet found on my iPhone, the GOP’s shady fundraising scheme, and an answer to TexasChem that I promised to provide this evening. I thank all of you who wished me well with my back. I spent quite a few years in the military doing really dumb things to my body, and every now and then it reminds me how dumb some of them were, lol. I just hope that I can remain in as good a shape as the good Colonel has managed….

Comments

Sen. Carl Levin accused a Goldman Sachs executive Tuesday of knowingly “trying to sell a sh—y deal” to investors, as the Senate’s hearing into the Wall Street giant’s investment practices kicked off with all the trappings of a show trial.

The hearing was held as Senate Democrats try to push through a sweeping financial regulation package on Capitol Hill, and as the Securities and Exchange Commission pursues a fraud case against the investment bank. Lawmakers used the forum to grandstand and shame the firm’s executives for their role in the midst of the financial crisis.

“You’re trying to sell a sh—y deal, and it’s your top priority,” Levin, chairman of the investigative subcommittee holding the hearing, told Daniel Sparks, a former partner and head of Goldman’s mortgages department.

The Michigan Democrat was citing a 2007 internal e-mail from another Goldman executive, Thomas Montag, that called a mortgage-linked investment transaction “one sh—y deal.” Levin repeatedly cited that e-mail at the end of a lengthy, rapid-fire exchange with Sparks.

Levin said Sparks sold hundreds of millions of dollars in securities in those transactions, even after the June 2007 e-mail. “You knew it was a sh—y deal, and that’s what your e-mails showed,” the senator said.

Sparks defended himself, saying the internal message reflected more “that my performance on that deal wasn’t good and the fact that we had lost money related to that wasn’t good.”

At the top of the hearing, senators accused Goldman Sachs of reaping huge profits from betting against the housing market in an “unethical,” if not illegal, investment scheme.

“It’s gambling, pure and simple raw gambling,” Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said, in a tough dressing-down of the executives on the panel. “You had less oversight than a pit boss in Las Vegas. … All of you were lemming-like, you were chasing each other.”

I have a couple of thoughts here and then a request or two from the group. First, I have grown more than tired of the dog and pony shows that these sessions have become. Just once I would like to see a movement in America that entails business executives and anyone else telling Congress to kiss their ass when told they must come to the hill and answer questions. These hearings serve no purpose, and will accomplish absolutely nothing other than giving dicks like Levin a forum to run their mouth.

Second, I have also had it up to my eyes with all the the feigned outrage in Washington DC. Levin is a good example. He comes across as outraged with the Goldman execs. He is angry because they screwed the people! Bullshit. The only time members of Congress get angry is when someone questions their right to screw the American people, they are never angry because they are protecting the people. I have watched this false outrage game played many times by members of both parties on capital hill. And I have simply had enough of it. This is all a show, actors playing their parts so that the American people will believe that someone is on their side. But no one is, not in Washington DC.

Finally, I am also tired of the blatant hypocrisy of the two parties in question. Beyond the outright lies, and short memories, lie the facts of the matter. How many of you remember Barney Frank and Chris Dodd about 4 years ago outright ridiculing any members of Congress who stated that Fannie and Freddie were leading us towards dire economic consequences? And then they later came back and expressed outrage that those same people did nothing to stop Fannie and Freddie from taking us in that direction. This is much the same.

Levin fails to recognize his and other Democrats roles in allowing Goldman to do the things that they have done. As an article LOI contributed yesterday showed, while Democrats have attempted these days to claim that the is all the GOP’s fault and that the GOP is the party of big business, they fail to note that 75% of the money that Goldman contributed was to Democrats. Levin, and the rest of the Democrats, including Obama, are every bit as in bed with big business as the Republicans are. If you believe differently, you need to stop drinking the kool-aid.

So, to my request. I am able to understand economics and I certainly have the ability to begin researching and attempting to fully understand the financial reform that the current administration is pushing for. I obviously do not for a second believe that they are genuine in wanting to reform the system in any effective way. What I lack is an economics background or a level of expertise in economics. As such, I lack the ability to provide the level of insight into what the current legislative pushes are really about or how they will work or not work. I am hoping that someone who has a better grasp on the economics side of things will be willing to write a guest commentary on the economic reform stuff happening today in DC, and then later be able to provide short updates as it works through the system. I simply lack the knowledge to do as good a job as others might be able to do, and I lack the time lately to research as much as I would need to do to make up for my shortcomings in this arena. It seems to be dominating the news cycle these days and I am not happy that I cannot offer the insight into such a big story as I can in other areas.

Remember me? Sorry to hear about your back, USW. Nothing worse than back pain (except a toothache). Hang in there.

It is a HUGE dog and pony show and nothing (NOTHING) Goldman Sachs or anybody else on Wall Street can’t live with will be the ultimate result … and BOTH parties are totally complicit in this mess start to finish (if there ever is a finish to the bailouts–I highly doubt it). The fact this country didn’t revolt over the bailouts says it all (they seemingly can do anything they want to us).

And it is why I have to wonder where are the tea partiers regarding Wall Street. How come no protests on Wall Street?

And Obama surrounding himself with Goldman Sachs people and the 3x’s as much financial contribution(s) compared to what Goldman gave Republicans is pretty telling itself.

My solution calls for tossing them all (executives at Goldman and both parties) off a roof, but first they have to buy a copy of my book and we’ll donate the money to those who were directly affected by the Goldman layoffs (imagine being allowed to continue to outsource jobs after taking money from taxpayers). Nothing to imagine; that’s exactly what this government permitted (among many other insults to the injury those bailouts were).

More tonight … I’ll be out most the day. Good seeing all’a yous again.

How soon we forget. The TEA PARTY was created over the anger of bailing out these nimrods.

They wanted the Govt to LET THEM FAIL. Whether misguided or not the message was loud and clear. It hasn’t changed.

So until there is something of substance to study, I expect most will continue to remain silent. But notice how the R’s couch the debate. This bill will create future bail outs. That is to anger the Tea Parties, who they know oppose bail outs.

The “Tea Partiers” are a very diverse group. I believe that many, if not most, of them believe that the big mega-banks should have been allowed to fail, and then the economic chips would have fallen where they were.

This MAY have resulted in a return to more personal banking on a local level where the individual customers were actually important again. Then again this may not have been the result, but at least it is certainly something we could have pushed for.

Instead the mega-banks were bailed out, and countless small local banks have been allowed to fail, and have been gobbled up by the mega-banks that were bailed out.

This will only serve to exacerbate the problem, and make the next crash even worse than the last one, regardless of what “regulations” Washington puts in place this time.

There are already 10s of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of pages of “banking and investment regulations”. A fat lot of good they have done us thus far!

The first time I ever heard about variable rate mortgages and how they worked, I could have told you they were a shitty deal. I am amazed they were even allowed to offer things like that. They had to have known people would default on the loan, and then the bank would foreclose, then sell it again and try to get another variable rate mortgage. All the while they make money off of the interest that is over 90% of the payments in the first couple years. This would have been great for the banks because the housing market was skyrocketing, the only problem for the banks was when the housing market collapsed the banks had to sell the houses for more then what they were worth.

They knew all along they were screwing their customers. I don’t blame them though, there were people stupid enough to think that they could make those significantly higher payments that were a few years down the road.

Naten…..out of curiosity…..anyone that reads an ARM or variable rate mortgage should see the same thing you saw. Buyer beware. Why is that, then, screwing their customers? They rolled the dice on refinancing down the road and rolled the dice on the property valuations….they lost.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black; segway to Levin…. This man is a prime example of how the species called politition evolves over time. Corrupt, corrupted corrupting…

He helped write, promote and pass the Health Care Bill. He is writing, promoting and pandering the Wall Street reform legislation. He is behing Cap & Trade. He is promoting that the state of Michigan control and regulate all Michigan waters in the interest of ecologic stability. (If this passes the State of Michigan would have complete control over all waters in the state, and could mandate those waters usage) It is kind of like eminant domain over water.

I could go on and on about this waste of flesh, but it would turn me into a raving nut unable to accomplish anything productive today.

Levin is a prime example of what WE DO NOT WANT representing us any longer. He and his followers have done more in the last 20 years to harm the people of Michigan than all the other ellected officials combined.

We need this guy out of office, but there is not even a remote chance in hell of this happening any time soon. He has the entitlement minded citizens of Michigan in his back pocket.

And, would somebody please reach over and remove those stupid glasses off his fat face, if for no other reason than to prove they are not perminately attached.

Glad to hear that you too dispise this waste of flesh. However, I fear there just are not enough of us like minded folks to vote this moron out.

Michigan has become, and continues to progress as a welfare state. Until the entitlement minded masses wake up and realize that they are being used like herd animals to promote continued government corruption nothing is going to change here in Michigan.

Its ok Anita, I have been in the open for a while, I use my real name on line (believe it or not). Of course, finding a guy named Jon Smith who lives is Richmond in a van with no actual address is still sort of anonymous, lol. 🙂

Those of us who think are never doomed, we just have to ride the storm and rebuild from the ruins.

A bit North of you in Oxford. Tried to get my dear wife to go further North 12 years ago when we moved from Berkley, but at the time she didn’t want to drive 10 miles for milk. Little did we know that it would build up so fast.

A good little community, but it has gotten crowded from my perspective. I grew up on a farm and I prefer my neighbors to be out of sight. But that will all change in the next few years.

A. The hearings aren’t even great theater anymore – just because you can say “shitty” a bunch of times does not give you a pass on culpability. The fact that even as the GOP for example expressed such OUTRAGE and then voted along party lines to not even allow DEBATE to move forward on reform shows what complete B.S. this is.

B. I am mostly done with Michael Lewis’ book – a great read indeed. I will be hard to convince that no regulation for those finanical products and transactions is a good idea. The system is ripe for complete rape and abuse – individual consumers and consumers as a whole are powerless in that equation.

Let me say that the following questions are asked with absolute sincerity since I have NO experience with stocks and Wall Street as a whole.

Please educate me…

– Isn’t it the case that all offerings devised, sold and managed in the “Investment” arena are accompanied by overworded disclosures indicating that there is “Risk” involved and there are no guarentees the “investor” will make money? In fact don’t these ‘disclosures’ even go so far as to indicate you could lose your ass?
– Isn’t it the case that the offerings discussed in Congress were legal?
– Isn’t it the case that Goldman-Sachs was selling both the long and the short as alternatives?
– Isn’t it that case that “all” stocks, bonds, commodities, annuities, etc have a certain level of risk, and it is mandated by the SEC that consumers are at least presented with a disclosure stating such?
– Isn’t it the case that companies on Wall Street are there to make a profit?
_ Don’t most people who have the capital to heavily invest in these type of offerings know that they are risking their money?
– Why aren’t those who lost their ass pursuing legal recourse?
– Isn’t it the case that most investors refrain from re-investing with sub-par or overly risky investment companies, resulting in that investment company going out of business?

As I stated initially I have NO background in investments or how Wall Street operates, and don’t care to learn. I keep my money out of Wall Street simply becausue I believe it to be just slightly lower risk than Vegas. However, I assume that the majority of Investment Firms operate within the law, otherwise they would be out of business either by a ‘Free Market’ principle or law.

Since we have example after example of how government intervention contributes to further degridation and social demise, why do we believe the government can positively benefit Wall Street?

Maybe the common man and woman should just save their money and stuff it into the mattress like granny did years ago. It might not multiply, but it is certainly a lot safer than trusting someone else with it.

The answer to all but the last two questions is YES. Although I don’t know specifically what disclosure rules applied to the new mortgage and debt based securities. But the bottom line is those who buy and sell these kinds of investments know full well their is significant risk.

I like to remind folks of the real estate investing course I took two years before the crash. They openly discussed the coming crash and the financial market fall out and taught how to capitalize on pre-forclosure markets and how to play the falling stock market for profit. These were private investors. Everyone knew the bubble would burst.

Now the last two questions.

If those harmed have a case they will sue. But they may be waiting for the govt to pump up charges to help them make their case.

Last question is another YES.

There is one VALID question in all of this, and it goes to whether the deals were legal.

Did they deliberately hide the risk associated with, or deliberately mis-characterize the nature of, the bundles of securities they created? That is fraud.

The assumption on the buy side, by the institutions like Govts and 401K plans, was that the bundles had a diversity of risk. This was the theory that supported these instruments and why Greenspan touted them in his book. They allowed the bankers and lenders and thus our economy to spread the risk, thus theoretically reducing the risk of a major failure. But it seems nobody was watching the “fractional lending” component. The risk was not just being spread, it appears it was being multiplied as these supposed assets were used to leverage more borrowing and more purchases of more risk.

I saw a comment by a lefty hater of wall street the other day claiming these investments caused the American public to be fleeced out of $14 trillion. This was the supposed economic losses caused by the housing bubble and derivatives turning into worthless paper.

In August of 2007, the value of ALL mortgages in the USA was at around $14 trillion. At that time, Freddie and Fannie held over 50% of that market and had sold portions of those notes through derivatives. It was estimated that up to 20% of the total mortgages could default. MY POINT you ask? How does a potential loss of somewhere under $7 trillion become a financial loss of $14 trillion?

Somewhere along the line, the cost was expanded beyond the original base values at risk.

One more key point to all of this. WE did not bail out the banks because their failure would destroy our financial system, in MY OPINION.

We bailed them out because they held the majority of the Federal Debt. If they had started to fail they would have had no choice but to call in the debt or dumb their treasuries on the open market for cash. This would have destroyed the market and thus made it impossible for the govt to continue funding its own debt. The govt would have been forced to default or begin printing billions upon billions.

So the govt bailed out the big investment firms and they used printed money to do it with.

Now I ask you. Does any of the political theater or the current “bank reform” address this key underlying problem?

No, but it does take some of the lime-light away from other more pressing issues that the current administration wants to hide. But alas, what else should we expect from a ‘smoke and mirrors’ government bent on crushing the Republic?

My wife and I decided a number of years ago to take our investment money and place it in CD’s and long term savings. Each month we allocate 15% of our gross earnings towards those ‘safe’ avenues. In addition we have purchased some gold and silver (actual product) and have that in the safe here at home.

This type of ‘investment’ won’t make us rich, but the risk of loss is about as low as you can get.

Personaly I think I would have a better chance of making a gain by going to Vegas and playing poker than playing the market. Unless of course BF was at the table, in which case I would just fold and go get a beer.

The average person can make good money in the stock market but it takes time. If folks aren’t willing to spend the time to learn and study their investments then they should not play the game.

One does not have to day trade but you must be diligent about staying on top of everything.

What you have done is help reduce the effects of inflation on your wealth. That is what I urge others to do as well. It is the source of our financial woes. If you stop that, then modest gains add up over the years.

I did want to point out, regarding your prior questions, that on all trades there are two sides. If someone is selling short then someone is buying long. In down markets many making the trades are still making money. I have heard calls for eliminating short positions and options. Yet these mechanisms help you “insure” against potential losses if the trade goes against you.

You are wise. The big investors have hundreds of Black Flags at the table. Best to stay away from the table all together.

If you have enough saved I would suggest you look at purchasing rental real estate property. The markets are very low. They may go lower but you don’t have to time perfectly.

Purchase if the Cap Rate is 10% or better. Realtors are still trying to push 5% but real investors know you need at least 10%.

Looking for land, not in Michigan, although did recently co-buy a modern cottage on the lake in Lake City, MI. It is on Lake Missaukee, which is about 1800 acers. Great bass, walleye and panfish fishing. We got it pretty cheap since the property values have gone down a great deal. We do rent it a bit, but are picky about who we rent it too. Our families spend most of our summer weekends up there now so it is our little retreat.

Have not yet decided where to by the ‘retirement’ home, but it will not be Michigan. Looking at Arkansas, Montana, Bama and Idaho, but still in the early stages.

My brother-in-law’s bought a fixer up’er for 30K and the rent is making the mortgage payment and then a little more.

Have considered that but not sure I want the ties when it comes time to make the final move.

Once you get close to the Rockies the prices climb at the same rate as the mountain slopes.

Also some affordable in the center of the state around Great Falls or Helena.

Example, we have been looking at 40 acres of weeds with a beater of a house for 350,000. No barn or other outbuildings and tons of work to get up and producing. At that is the cheapest we have found on the west side. The same 300,000 will buy 50 to 80 acres of productive hay ground under irrigation near Great Falls or Helena and maybe 100 acres out near Billings.

Water is the key thing to look for in buying land out here. Everything needs irrigation unless you just want space around you.

If your serious about looking to the west I will put together some stuff for you to work from. Let me know what your priorities and preferences are, regarding distance to towns, services and scenery.

Parts of Wyoming would be good as well as Montana and Idaho. And you would love the politics of Wyoming.

Thanks for the info and future support. My time lines are around 2012-2013. Need that time to add to the kitty. Amount of land depends on what is around it; preferalbly more land. Won’t need a lot of home as far as square footage, but will want ample barn space for critters. I imagine a log home and I would like it to be independent of power companies. I use to think that I wanted to live in the mountains, but I no longer have the leggs for those hills.

Don’t use the R’s refusal to start debate as some kind of proof they are standing in the way of reform.

The D’s are playing this up but know full well this is how things are done in the Senate in order to let the Committee do its work. Once things go to the Senate floor, little good comes of the debate.

Notice that up until now Dodd has not been screaming about the R’s position. They are trying to work out something. It will eventually come to the floor and then we will know. The R’s know that if they are caught siding with Wall Street they will lose any momentum they have going into the Fall elections.

In fact, decrying the supposed filibuster of debate is part of the THEATER itself.

I truly believe there is little in the way of regulation needed to address the issues of complex investments. If you are looking for regulatory solutions then answers lie in searching for the basic supports and risks, not in trying to regulate the details at the expanded/ most complex end.

In the end, is not theft simply theft? Is not fraud simply fraud? Remove the barriers to holding individuals personally accountable for theft and fraud and watch the schemes dry up.

The financial institutions would not be so dangerous without power granted to them through government fiscal policy, i.e. the federal reserve banking system, restrictions on investments, destruction of a good bond program demonized as “junk bonds”, etc. A government that will make such gross errors, then get into bed with these same institutions and create a holy alliance of power, is not exactly the institution I would choose to “regulate” and “control” these financial institutions and markets. That is just asking a man-eating bear to be your personal bodyguard.

The key is to redo fiscal policy and institutions to separate government from the market with the exception of enforcing anti-fraud laws and contracts.

Lets turn this country around and bring it back to what it once was a patriotic place of freedom, opportunity, and the right to pursue happiness.

not this bullshit now were people tell us how to eat, breathe, sleep, buy and whatever else this huge government is planning on next to take away from us.
-oh our SELF PROVIDED HEALTH CARE
Dig deep in your pockets people join the movement stand up to the politicians!!!!!

Looking for porn? Get a Google phone, Steve Jobs said recently, defending Apple’s role as moral watchdog following complaints that a political satire app had been flagged as pornography.

But some say the iPhone is anything but PG, and they’re questioning how much effort Apple is investing in keeping itself clean.

The socially conservative Parents Television Council (PTC) thinks a wealth of salacious apps are currently available for iPhone users — things like “My Vibe,” which converts the iPhone into a vibrator, and “Love Positions Free,” which has drawings of couples having sex. The group has publicly demanded that Apple stop providing porn to children — and clean up its act.

But Apple’s CEO Steve Jobs disagrees, saying that hard-core porn is verboten on his family-friendly iPhone. “We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone,” the man in the black turtleneck recently told a customer, according to TechCrunch.

As part of that responsibility, the company has removed many apps from the iTunes store that it deems inappropriate, including “Dirty Fingers Screen Wash,” in which girls in bikinis “clean” the inside of the iPhone’s screen, and “Tight Body Perky Boobs,” a collection of photos of young women.

“Folks who want porn can buy an Android phone,” Jobs said, referring to the adults-only app store available for the Google platform that powers the Android.

Still, the pro-family activists think Apple isn’t doing enough. In recent weeks the PTC successfully lobbied Apple to remove some blatant pornography from the iTunes store, including an application called “Shawna Lenee Private Dance,” which featured a porn movie star and former Penthouse vixen fondling herself.

I own an iPhone, and I have to say that with hundreds of folks reading this site, I am sorely disappointed that no one pointed out to me that their was so much porn stuff available for my device. I mean, what is wrong with a little T and A on a man’s phone? Just kidding everyone, Mrs. Weapon wouldn’t stand in the way of porn on my phone, but she wouldn’t exactly be happy about it either.

This, my friends, is exactly the type of hypocrisy that I often speak about when I am denouncing the conservative side of the ledger. How often have we witnessed the conservatives and Republicans waving the nanny state flag and railing on for hours about how they hate the fact that America has become a nanny state? It is constant. It is a part of the conservative mantra, a box that must be checked on each speech. “mention nanny state of big government? Check!”

And then, after whining about the nanny state that Liberals are creating, they finish out their argument by pronouncing that the government must do a better job of censoring television, rap music, and video games. In other words, nanny state on liberal issues…. bad big government. Nanny state on conservative issues…. a necessary legal position to take in order to instill morality on society and protect our precious children from the gays, gangs, and genitals. HYPOCRITES!!!!!

Where I break down on this particular issue is this. First, I don’t give a flying sack of horse droppings what the PTC thinks of apps offered by Apple for the iPhone. I don’t care if it is a vibrator app (ugly girls need love too) or a visual reference guide to better sex (ugly guys don’t want to ruin the only chance they might get). I don’t care what the application is, I don’t see it as Apples responsibility to make sure that all applications are child safe or even child friendly. Because it isn’t Apple’s job to raise your damn child. If you don’t want your child to see what Apple offers, then don’t allow your child to get a damn iPhone! Because you know what? I am 40 years old, and if I want to get porn on a device that I paid for, that is my perogative. If you don’t want your child to see it, don’t let them have the device. You apparently don’t even want to take the time to raise your own children while you take action raise other folk’s children by removing options from society that you don’t approve of. Piss off…..

Second, a single “but” here… Steve Jobs, if you are going to tout your phone as being the safer phone for kids, then you are putting yourself in a position where you are going to be forced to do one of two things. You can either meet the standards you are claiming to have met, or you can abandon those standards and stop claiming that you have met them. You can have it both ways.

Apple can sell whatever apps they want, and get rid of any apps they don’t want. What I don’t get it is if the iPhone is supposed to be so great, almost like a computer, wouldn’t they have something programmed in so that parents can censor apps on the phone if they want to. Heck, TVs can even block commercials now based on that TV rating system.

… But… and I can’t believe I’m going to come down on the side of these puritans ….

Apple is a private company which is free to do whatever it wants. If the PTC idiots are able to successfully lobby Apple to do something, that’s not big government. It’s private influence on private industry. So, while I would very much like a YouPorn.com app on my phone (preferably called something more subtle so Emilius doesn’t stumble upon it by accident), it’s Jobs’ call whether or not to allow it. However, when they start trying to make laws for this, that’s where I get off the boat.

But I do agree that there is only so much censorship I’m willing to allow in the things I buy – it’s one of the reasons I’m holding off on the iPad. Apple should create parental controls to allow adult material. They should also allow an unregulated marketplace for apps: we haven’t vetted or approved these apps, they may be inappropriate, they may void your warranty, they may contain viruses, but you’re free to put them on the device you paid $600 for at your own risk. Give me that, and I’ll buy an iPad by the end of the day.

Perhaps HuffPo and MSNBC want to create the appearance that the “morally righteous” are out to “legislate” their version of morality.

I think BOTH.

I followed commentary on this from the left and many immediately linked this completely rightful private debate and potential boycott to the assumption that the Conservatives are out to Legislate Gay Marriage, Abortion and now Porn on private devices.

See how easily the rats can be teased into a frenzy? Lets throw some more poisoned oats over here in the corner and watch them scurry.

I agree with all that you have said. And I do recognize that there is a big difference between a conservative group saying Apple is bad and a law being passed saying Apple must do X. The problem that I have is that when the conservatives get in power, they tend to believe that they have the right to legislate these types of things. Right now the liberals are legislating their brand of morality. When the conservatives have the reigns, they legislate their type of morality. I think they should BOTH piss off.

Using market pressure to get your way…. OK
Using government force to get your way…. NOT OK

The Nebraska Democratic Party filed a mail fraud report against the Republican National Committee on Monday for sending out deceiving mailers that appear to be a “Census Document.” A member of Congress has also confirmed that the U.S. Postal Service was investigating the matter.

In a letter (pdf) sent to the Postal Inspection Service on Monday, Victor Covalt III, a bankruptcy lawyer and Nebraska Democratic Party official accused the RNC of “attempting to wrongfully trade off and profit from the 2010 Census.”

He also charged the Committee with violating a recently-passed law, by not including “an accurate return address including the name of the entity that sent such matter,” in its deceptive mailers.

The filing by Covalt represented the first legal action taken against the RNC in the wake of reports that it was continuing to send out fund-raising appeals under the guise of census mailers even after Congress had passed a law attempting to stop the practice. On Tuesday, however, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle heaped criticism on the GOP group. Two senior members of the House Oversight committee — Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and William Clay (D-MO) — sent a letter to the Postmaster General, urging him to “act swiftly” on the matter. And Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) confirmed to The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent that the postal service was investigating whether laws were broken.

“They’re trying to be deceptive, and it outrages me,” Chaffetz said.

Covalt was actually the recipient of one such mailer himself. The Nebraska Democratic Party state chair got an RNC fake census document in his mailbox last Wednesday, after which he decided to file a mail fraud report to the Postal Inspection Service.

“I can’t believe that a national party such as this would stoop down so low that there is even any argument about it. Where is there honor? Is there no honor in the Republican Party,” Covalt said in a brief telephone interview with the Huffington Post. “Republicans claim to be the constitutional party. Yet they are the first ones to insult the constitution with this low-ball play. That’s what is going on. It is trash. That is what it is.”

“The RNC and Michael Steel, if they are not violating the law, are paying right up to the edge of it,” Covalt added.

A couple thoughts here…. First, again we see the false outrage and the outright hypocrisy involved in Washington DC. That the statement, “attempting to wrongfully trade off and profit from the 2010 Census.” even appeared is ludicrous, given the fact that both parties attempt to do their best to manipulate both the census and the subsequent re-districting to benefit their parties both politically and economically.

What has begun to irk me today, as I am sure you are finding as a common thread in my discussions, are the false claims and false emotional appeals that are being used. It is purely political rhetoric, and as such is something that isn’t new to us. But that doesn’t mean I am not tiring of hearing it. I mean, look at this statement from Covalt: “I can’t believe that a national party such as this would stoop down so low that there is even any argument about it. Where is there honor? Is there no honor in the Republican Party? Republicans claim to be the constitutional party. Yet they are the first ones to insult the constitution with this low-ball play.” Really? Are the Democrats in Congress really going to attempt to utter the words that Republicans are the first to insult the Constitution? It borders on being such an outrageous statement as to make one’s head explode.

I won’t claim that the GOP doesn’t insult the Constitution. But for a Democrat to even utter the words is absolutely incredible. Both of the parties in DC are so far gone that they are no longer effective members of society, let alone representative of the people.

Now, as to the actions of the GOP group responsible for the actions in question. I am not in the least bit surprised. I have received upwards of twenty items from conservative groups that appear to be official government things, much like the census. Upon inspection, every single one of them has been a fundraising scheme. I have received ZERO items like this from liberal groups that I recall. Now that may be because I used to be a registered Republican so those groups don’t bother with me. Or it may be because the liberal fundraising campaigns are not using this dishonest tactic.

I 100% support the fact that this group is being investigated and the fact that they should be fined if they are found to have violated the recently passed legislation that was referenced in the article. I have grown awful weary of the sheer amount of this trash that has ended up in my mailbox. There is little doubt that the intent is to trick people into both reading and contributing. Recall back a year or so ago when I posted the questions and answers that appeared on one of these that I had received from the GOP or the Heritage Foundation, I forget which. Recall as well that to send your answers to the survey back you had to pay a minimum of $12 in fees to process your answers. That fee was waved, of course, if you contributed $25 or more outright.

That the GOP has been reduced to little more than snake oil a salesman in order to get contributions not only says something horrible about what they have become, but says a lot about the state of modern politics and the citizens who are supposed to be served by them.

I would agree that the reason you probably haven’t seen any liberal versions of this is because of your stated affiliation – sample bias. but, I haven’t ever received something like this and I am a registered Democrat.. so maybe my side just isn’t playing this particular game.

The tell is the words of the lawyer himself who is causing the fuss: ““The RNC and Michael Steel, if they are not violating the law, are paying right up to the edge of it,” Covalt added.”

No lawyer who is filing for legal action and expects to prevail would make that caveat.

I don’t think the rest of USW’s post was just noise. It was in fact consistent with the storyline of the day. Come on Ray. If your going to watch the movie take off your sunglasses. You will see all the colors much more clearly.

I don’t really know the answer to that. I guess the court will have to decide whether it is fraud or not. I tend to lean towards it not being fraud, but it is certainly deceptive in nature. Did they break the law? Probably not, they are smarter than that. Did they violate the INTENT of the law? Absolutely, and thus showed themselves to be the dirty scumbags they are.

And for the record, I agree with JAC, the rest isn’t just noise. It is high time we started seeing the two sides for what they have become. That is the first step towards freeing ourselves from the oppression of the two major parties today. They are our biggest obstacle to a better and more free society.

I wonder what it is called when advertisements to get tickets to a popular event send the buyer to a particular web site. And once there, the buyer is asked to provide private information to “register” for said tickets and event information. And upon “registering” the buyer finds ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO PURCHASE said ticket to said event.

Instead all they find is a list of future events, mission statements of a particular politician, ways to contribute, and opportunities to volunteer.

And then the emails and phone calls start coming. Asking for money!!!!

And then the little paid Democrat mice start showing up at your door. Asking for money!!!!

It seems that your “registration” was to get your information and then use it for mass mailings, robo calls and door knocking/hanging events.

Now, is this Mail Fraud? Is it Internet Fraud? It was certainly Fraudulent but was it FRAUD?

Agreed Kathy. I am not sure I would say it is fraud, as I stated to Ray above, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t intended to be deceptive in nature. And as for stupid is as stupid does, that is really the intent as well. They are fully intending to bilk contributions from those too uneducated to know better. I wouldn’t prosecute them in this case, but I sure as hell would call them dirty.

County supervisors in California have proposed that toys included in fast-food restaurant meals for kids be banned, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Officials in Santa Clara are convinced that luring kids into eating foods with high sugar, sodium and fat by using toys will make them overweight and cause long term health problems.

This proposal is believed to the first of this type, and would ban the inclusion of a toy in any kids meal with more than 485 calories, 600 mg of salt, or high amounts of sugar or fat. These guidelines would cause all McDonald’s happy meals—even those with apple sticks instead of French fries—to be served without a toy.

Supporters of the ban argue that it will force restaurants to offer nutritious foods to kids. Others have said this is another case of the government getting too involved in parenting decisions.

Speaking of the nanny state…. Of course it would have to be either California, New York, or Vermont that would come up with this newest batch of nonsense. In my opinion, this shows the arrogance, the lack of freedom, and the complete idiocy in the sunshine state.

Let’s be honest. No one is going to mistake California for a beacon of free thought or individual liberty in America. Just being home the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is usually enough to sway most folks towards the idea of letting California detach and float away. Add in the gigantic social agenda, and it becomes a place where anything is possible. I mean, what other state would elect a cyborg assassin from the future as their governator?

OK, first, arrogance. The liberal elite in California, believing that they are simply smarter than everyone else and therefore must do the thinking for everyone, has decided to take action to stop wayward parents from feeding their children meals that might not be as healthy as they like. Remember, we aren’t talking about making suggestions, or even offering education on nutrition. We are talking about passing a law that makes it a punishable offense to include a toy in a happy meal. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? It is a TOY! In a MEAL! Not a gun, a poison tablet, a sharp object, or even a picture of Nancy Pelosi. A TOY. And why do we need to take the toy out of the happy meal? Let’s go to idiocy.

The toys that come in a happy meal are not going to be interesting to any child over the age of 5. This is not a Rubik’s Cube. We are talking about plastic figures or hot wheels cars. I have to imagine that there are not a lot of 5 year olds driving up to the window and ordering a happy meal. Which means that the person that the toy will benefit, the child, is not the one making the buying decisions in the situation. It is the parent. The parent could give a shit whether there is a toy in there. The happy meal is a convenient answer. It will continue to be a convenient answer. Only now children will simply not get a toy, and parents will lose the carrot they used to have to force their child to eat the damn apple slices.

Finally…. Freedom. I could go on and on forever here. But you get the idea. When the world has gotten to the place where the state deems it their area of responsibility to dictate and punish the placing of toys in a restaurant’s kids meal, I think that we can safely say that the government has far overstepped its bounds.

I say the time has come for us to rebel against these types of laws. Regulating salt intake, toys, sugar, whatever. People have the ability to make decisions that they see fit. If it will make them fat, so be it. I don’t care. They won’t be able to get laid, and the gene pool gets a little Darwin injection. I am beyond sick and tired of the reach of government. Enough. All of you politicians, especially you liberals, get your hands and minds out of my life. I DON’T NEED YOU! Serve the two or three functions that I believe you are supposed to serve and go away.

WOW…..an educational process in earnest. You are right…I did not know about the three California’s. You are correct in Sou Cal…too many digestion problems…forgot about about Marguerita rich Baja and Cabo……

Ok I digress…..Northern California is very beautiful and I will acquiesce that there are good folks there…..even Matt fits that category…so does DPM….

Sounds to me like someone from that county is on the board of McDonalds. Think how much money they can save by not having to provide toys in each happy meal. Pennies each but they add up, and the best part is, McDonalds doesn’t look like the bad guy not offering the kids toys. Do you think McDonalds will lower the price because of this, or pay their employees more? They are thinking dollar signs. Now only if they could get Obama on their board.

From the rest of the article:
“Even though it’s largely symbolic — the proposed ban would apply only to the dozen fast-food restaurants within the jurisdiction of the board — the proposal has caused a bit of an uproar on the Internet, where comments on YouTube and other sites say it is another example of the “nanny state” gone wild.”
They won’t make a lot of money from twelve stores in the county. If you are a McDonald’s in the cities life goes on as usual. Who knows maybe the 12 stores in the county could start a class action law suit against all the other stores in the US and win millions in damages, the lawyers would be happy to help.

Where is Mr. Obama’s public statement of outrage over a municipality clearly overstepping its authority and infringing upon the Constitutional rights of the federal government to regulate commerce?

These toys could clearly wind up passing across state lines and are thus subject to interstate commerce controls. If illegal migrants are not subject to State control then how can small toys given to illegal migrants in hamburger bags not also be prohibited from State control. What if the legals trade toys with legals from other States, or to illegals who then migrate. Oh my god!!!!

What next? Hamburger bag profiling. I can see it plain as day. Those damn Nazis have taken over Santa Clara. What does an illegal hamburger bag look like?

I have been looking for a cause to support, but this ain’t it, so I have decided to initiate my own.

Since it seems that a great deal of self-rightous individuals throughout the country seem to believe it is their responsibility to enforce specific behavior within our children and younger adults, I have decided to join in.

I mean let’s face it, somebody has to take responsibility for the youth in today’s society, because the youth are just too stupid to realize how much harm they are doing to themselves.

Since there is already a great deal of organizations and individuals out there promoting correct nutrition, I will take up the cause for “Proper Attire”

Proper Attire seems to have gone the wayside here in America. And it is because the youth are allowed to dress inappropriately. The youth of today are wearing cloths that are way to large for their individual size. This creates a number of health and safety hazards, not to mention an additional threat to ecologic balance.

What I am referencing here is baggy pants, shirts, jackets, unlaced shoes, loose hanging jewelry, and oversized belts. This is cause for alarm as it threatens are childrens safety and general welfare. Let me state some specific examples:

– Pants that hang or are worn down around the bottom of the bottom tend to restrict proper movement resulting in reduced agility and therefore increase the risk of bodily injury.
– Oversized shirts and jackets increase the chance of the cloths getting caught in car doors, windows, tables, chairs, bikes, skateboards, etc, etc. This increases the chances of our children being involved in more accidents from normal day-to-day activity.
– Allowing our children to purchase this type of clothing promotes disproportionate logic. The next thing you know the kids will be unable to compute size or measurement, and God knows where that will lead
– Additional Ecological devistation is expected since the disproportions of apparel leads to unwarranted use of precious natural materials like cotton, wool, leather, and the natural resources needed to yield these elements.
– In appropriate colors and un-quordinated patterns will certainly wreak havoc on the fashion industry resulting in additional unemployment and economic depression.
– Misappropriation of funds due to the cost of these current styles promotes future entitlement mentality verses conservative money management.
– Poor health and physical awareness is sure to follow. Since the apparel they are wearing these days is 4-5 times larger, kids will not be able to realize that the Happy Meals they are eating are causing them to gain weight and increasing the chances of heart disease.

So, since our youth are critical to the longevity of America I say we all ban together, form an organization and promote a bill in congress that stipulates appropriate proportions in clothing and apparel.

Damn, CM………I just picked up through my clandestine communication interception device (supplied by Matt) that Obama just enacted a new Commission that will not be vetted by the Senate or House, that creates a new czar position that pays $150,000 per year plus staff named the Commission for the Appropriate Clothing and Apparel (CACA) for children. It seems he read your post and jumped on it quickly. I am sure that it will be tied into the Cap and Trade Bill somehow.

On a more serious note….they have tried to address some of that here in the public schools in most areas. No butt cracks…no underwear showing…no t shirts below waistlines unless worn with leggings for P.E…… It has also been extended to gang paraphenalia (sp) as well.

If it wasn’t for my high moral character, dedication to individual liberty and freedom, the fact that I throw-up a little bit in my mouth each time I am forced to utter the word ‘obama’ I might consider campaigning for that czar post. Alas, I guess I will just maintain the individual battle and promote Apparel Safety for Children on a local level.

Maybe you can use some of the safety hazards I pointed out in my earlier post to further the cause there in Texas.

BTW: Just heard that Perry is killing ‘yotes’ trying to rape his dog. Does he pack a Glock, S&W, Colt or ?

Perry said he carries his .380 Ruger — loaded with hollow-point bullets — when jogging on trails because he is afraid of snakes. But when a coyote came out of the brush toward his daughter’s Labrador retriever, Perry charged. Perry said the laser pointer on his gun helped make a quick, clean kill. “It was not in a lot of pain,” he said. “It pretty much went down at that particular juncture.”

I have to admit I have a deep affection for the .380, although my .380 of choice is a Walther PPK (German made), however it would not be my choice for dealing with snakes, even with a lazer.

My newest choice for snake (both non-legged and legged) is the new Taurus “Judge” which allows you to load both .410 buckshot and .45 long colt. It is a little heavy, especially for jogging, but you can now purchase those fanny packs designed for handgun concealment.

The .410 buckshot works effectively on snakes and I am sure I don’t have to tell you about the effectiveness of the .45 long colt.

I have grown to appreciate this weapon and it has all but replaced my Kimber 1911 as my first choice for personal defense.

I am willing to bet that Taurus would ‘gift’ the governor one as a promotional idea

I will have to try that, especially since I am sure the sight of my BC would have a much more devistating effect than your danty tousy.

Although our son is 26 and moved out he still wears his pants down past ‘plumber stage’. And to make things even worse he has gone ‘commando’ ever since he was in the Army.

D-13, USW and those of you with military backgrounds…Isn’t it a violation’ in military porticol to go without ‘skives’? Why then is it that all those fellows in the Army who have returned from Iraq and Afganistan develped the habit of going ‘commando’?

Very good question…..Commando is the preferred method due to chaffing and jungle rot. Now ladies…..when you see most of the troopers in their fatigues….you now know most are commando.

Boxers are just uncomfortable to me…Jockeys with elastic banding chaffed and created moisture…also….whenever in the field for extended periods of time…there is no change of underwear. So, no underwear is preferable….in combat zones, I preferred to carry extra dry socks and more ammo and food.

Why did the government ban cigarette companies from targeting children with cartoons? Because cigarettes are bad for you.

Fast food, delicious as it may be, is bad for you. Does anyone dispute this fact? For them to attempt to bring children is an attempt to “hook them for life” first and sell them something second.

All this legislation does is take away some of the incentive that appeals to minds which are incapable of long-term rational planning. Is it meddling? Sure. Is it overreach? Possibly. Is it a bad thing in and of itself? I don’t think so.

The contradictions in your moral base will either destroy you in the long run or they will destroy the rest of us.

The heart rot that kills the tree Matt doesn’t start in the branches. It starts in the smallest of roots. It spreads to ever larger roots until it finally enters the stem, then spreading to the limbs where you will finally see the disease manifested. But alas, the tree is now dead but just doesn’t know it yet.

Cigarettes are addictive, hamburgers and fries are not!

Because immoral laws are made in the past is not a REASON for passing more immoral laws today or in the future.

Water, if drunk to excess can kill you. Are we to pass laws setting limits on your water intake?

The reason the govt banned advertisements is because the self righteous ass clowns in government think it is their job to be our freaking parents. It is consistent with the left wing educated elite’s mind set (E’s and R’s). The rest of us are just ignorant trailer trash. We have to be CARED FOR.

Oh! And of course it increased the political donations of the tobacco and advertising companies who then spend millions over years to try and change those rules or prevent others from being passed.

Let’s see…legalize prostitution…OK Legalize marijuana…OK Place trinkets in childrens meals…NOT OK. Mathius, you once again have me extremely confused??! Not difficult to do, admittedly, but confused non the less….

Hmmm…wonder if that was a form of trade? I grew up in the college days of the 60’s. That type of protocol was not necessary then…however, when my daughter came along….protocol sure changed a lot with me.

It’s a systematic deliberate attempt to entice children into wanting their “food.” The kids nag the parents and the parents take them to McD’s. When the kid grows up, they eat there all the time and bring their own kids.

The dollars flow to the restaurant, the health problems flow to the kid.

How does it hurt me? It doesn’t hurt me, specifically, but it hurts a whole generation of children who suffer from the downstream health problems.

I have a real problem with your hypocracy. No one has the right to tell you you cannot smoke pot or pay to have sex with a ‘working women’, but you have a right to support a government that dictates what and where your kids eat?????

Why is ok for you to risk disease via your vices, but other people’s children can’t have a toy if they eat a Happy Meal?

Is it possible that your senses have been blurred by your own vices?

BTW: Since you work in the Wall Street Market I am really interested to know (from your point of view) what the folks at Goldman Sachs did wrong in 2007 to warrant new regulations?

Ever heard of ‘parents’? Most small children don’t have the money or means to travel to Micky-D’s and order a kids meal. Sheesh. BTW, in most cases, parents are adults, able to make rational decisions while weighing risk and reward.

Murf says: But not caused by McDonald’s……It’s caused by poor lifestyle choices across the board, not by one set of choices at one restaurant that first had the idea of marketing themselves through what they called a Happy Meal. The fallacy here is that you could possibly hope to impact childhood obesity by targeting one (wildly successful) fast food chain……

so if this catches on, and soon there are no toys in Happy Meals, and childhood obesity is NOT impacted in the least (and I promise you it won’t be)- then they have to go after something else, and something else, etc.

Which is the point. The libs want to go after as many things as they can, take control of as many aspects of our lives as they can with legislation that is every bit as effective as shooting BB’s at an advancing army led by D13…..

But we can all feel much better, can’t we, about all those BB’s that were shot!! By God, those in DC are really doing something about the problem here!!! Keep those votes coming, now…..and they’ll keep shoveling out the snake oil and horsesh*t.

Matter of fact, I’m getting hungry……think I’ll go over to McDonald’s and have a Happy meal- it’s about the right size for my appetite. And I’ll give the toy to a child there and make him/her a little happier…..

Just for the record, a few years back I felt like I needed to lose a few pounds….my dr didn’t tell me to lose weight, no one thought I was overweight…..but I changed my eating habits and started doing an exercise I really enjoyed (ballroom dancing). I lost 25 pounds over 18 months and weigh less than I did when I graduated from high school……but I didn’t stop eating at McD’s when I felt like it, I just ate smaller portions and made that a habit in all my meals, whether I cooked or went out. I buy and cook with real butter, only buy whole milk, but eat only until I am satisfied, not “full”. I love to cook, I love to eat. And I know when to stop.

I have four grown children, and 11 grandchildren…..no obesity in any of them. They know what causes weight gain…..eating too much of (fill in the blank here) and being too inactive.

It’s a simple concept…..personal responsibility. But it’s what the creeps in DC- and I don’t refer just to Dems here, but Reps as well- don’t want us to practice.

Gotta leave it to Matt…(Too much Red Bull this morning?) We are talking about 0-5 years old….I do not know many that walk into a McDonald’s by themselves…doesn;t this infringe upon parental rights and their children that you so vehemently argued for, one time (if I remember correctly), friend Matt?

By the way, thank you for leaving your basement open…I got my sub out before the mutiny.

But Matt…you are my friend….and DPM is only needed at certain times….and if YOU keep him corralled properly…I do not have to.

Using the light switch? How mundane. Besides, using the light switch certainly would have alerted DPM and HE could have sailed out…but he was snoring too loudly from an over exposure to DP and Rum….and trying to figure out Apple Aps….so, we used the Sonar…knew he would not hear it.

Already liberated the ordinance…nice garage though. Went ahead and sanitized the garage for you for residual rads from depleted uranium. Thank you for taking such good care of the warheads.

Oh…this especially for you, sir….but you had better sit down for this. ok, Ready? Perhaps you better grab hold….ready?

My son…yes, the son of D13, once chained himself to a tree in something called the Baloona (sp) wetlands to protest them cutting them down and filling in a swampy area….in LA, I think it was. He was so intrigued by everyone bringing him hamburgers and such…stayed there for several days, I think. Then when he got tired and thought he made his point, he unchained himself…..to see the dozers the next day move in. He was even more disappointed when he found out that Al Gore was on the board of directors of the group that was behind the dozing….I think I have this correct.

But, my own son is an environmentalist and antiwar…(not anti military..said he would never disrespect his dad), loves Sou Cal…I encouraged him in his beliefs and selections and told him I took no offense. He and I still spar from time to time…and he is surprised how much smarter I have become over the years…….

He now lives in Trinidad, Colorado as a Smoke Jumper and rescue party.

D13 is always right, isn’t he? I find myself in agreement with him on almost everything…..

BTW Anita, I’m a Texas gal and proud if it. Murf is an old nickname from high school, bestowed on me by my Spanish teacher when she didn’t want to try to pronounce my unusual first name, so she shortened my last name…..Murphy at the time. I don’t always find time to blog , but I’ve been on SUFA for over a year.

Fast food is not bad in moderation. I have eaten fast food most of my adult life. Not exclusively or constantly, but I will go hit up the dollar menu and mickey
D’s and knock out 2 or 3 cheeseburgers or McChickens for lunch. I do it a lot less these days because I don’t work out as much. When I was in better shape, I ate fast food at least 5 or 6 times a week, I could run 10k in under an hour, had 7% body fat, and could deadlift nearly triple my weight. I was in great shape, great blood pressure levels, cholesterol levels, etc. Fast food is definately notbad for you on its own, or at least, a good active child can easily combat the bad stuff and take advantage of the good stuff. It is still food after all. If you are more sensitive to cholesterol or you have an inactive lifestyle, or your kids does, then you dont eat greasy food. If you run hard all day, eat whatever.

As for the addictive nature, I would say that is pretty dang debateable too. As far as cigarettes, I think truth in advertising could have handled some of the old ciggy ads just fine, no need to restrict cartoons per se. The Simpsons is a cartoon, so is Family Guy. Does that make them targetted to kids? Are those shows good for kids? Nanny state is bullshit. It doesnt matter what type of nannying they do. You cannot say to remove toys from a meal but legalize prostitution and pot and be anything but hypocritical and a follower of the thoughts of others. No thinking person can rationalize both of those views. If you can, I want to hear how. Seriously, I would like to know how your mind works, maybe I am missing something in my own logical progressions.

I promised TexasChem that I would reply to the comments made yesterday directed at Black Flag and myself. So here goes:

Anyways, back to the mind-war…you guys amaze me with your preconceptions that morality is not/should not be legislated.*BLINK*BLINK*
What would you deem our laws against murder, robbery, rape, child abuse etc.?!? *BLINK*BLINK*
What is law if nothing more than a means of enforcing morality?

You have it backwards there TC. Laws against murder, rape, robbery and child abuse are NOT, I repeat NOT, laws enforcing “morality”. They are laws that punish the infringement of personal freedom and liberty. The acts you presented here are not moral arguments, they are liberty arguments. I do not have the right to kill you, force you to have sex against your will, or take your property. Those would be violations of your natural rights, whether moral or not. Your mistake is to believe they are supported by me because of morality. I support those laws because they stop people from infringing on natural rights.

What is law if nothing more than a means of enforcing morality?

Well, PROPER law is one that protects natural rights. As for what law has become… are you really going to attempt to claim that law today is a means of enforcing morality? Take a good read of topic #4 again.

Seems to me that some of you are so into this “freedom for all, you can’t TELL ME what to do!” mindset that you are willing to allow your beliefs to infringe upon those innocents that would be preyed upon by the dregs of our society.*BLINK*BLINK*

100% incorrect. Freedom does not mean the ability to do whatever you want to do. It is the ability to do whatever you want to do so long as it does not impose on others. I have no problem with a law the makes murder against the laws of the people. But I also recognize that I don’t need a law written by you or anyone else to tell me that it is wrong to take another man’s life. I don’t need a law to tell me that it is wrong to take your property. Do you need a politician to tell you those things are wrong? If you had your gun trained on the man who was raping your daughter, would you need to stop and think about what the law says you should do? Or would you know it all by yourself, no written mandate needed?

ALMOST ALL human behavior is learned.Instinctual behavior by humans is very, very limited.

Completely unfounded. If that were true, most societies would never have come to be. We don’t need to be taught to form relationships or to eat when we are hungry. There is great benefit to learned behaviors and ideas, but they are not essential to survival. We are an animal like every other in the aspect that we are born with instincts for survival. What we are not born with is the ability to provide what our instincts know we need, thus the need for parenting.

Learned Human behavior has had a profound effect upon our society. Negative Learned behavior is incorporated into our morals and mores; inexcusably contributing to the degradation of our society over time.The writings on the wall lads! It’s not for me to read it to you, but; for you to read the writing yourselves!

Agreed. Learned behavior has a profound effect on society. Yet the problem that you face is that you believe that it is the role of society to provide the learning. It is not. It is your responsibility as a parent. I grew up in the same society, hanging out in the same bad and good places, as many people who you would rail against. Why do you think this is. If society is to blame, then why, pray tell, did I turn out OK?

BF and USW I still fail to understand why you guys try to place my responses as purely emotional rhetoric! Based upon what assumptions? LOL If my post elicits an emotioanl response from you then perhaps I have done my job using Pathos?

I don’t render your responses as all pure emotional response. And I would argue that I have yet to see a response from me that shows any sign of you eliciting an emotional response from me. I simply lay out the logic and present my case. No emotion involved. It is the most well known trait to those who know me well, the fact that I do not allow emotion to ever get in the way of logic and reason, sometimes to the great detriment of my situation (just ask Mrs. Weapon about that one). However, you do tend to allow emotion to cloud your judgement. I say this not because I think you are some hysterical loon or anything like that. I say this because you will often use the same logical thought process as those you oppose, and yet don’t see that you are doing so. I don’t say that as an insult. Many, MANY people do this.

How far do we let our morals drop in western culture before we begin feeding upon ourselves in some mindless frenzy? Wait a second!I do believe it is entirely possible this may already be occurring. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves how best to reverse it!

Well, we have been doing it your way for 240 years, and that doesn’t seem to have gotten us anywhere. Because you are not able to agree to a set of morals with anyone else, you continue to spin your wheels and wonder why things are slipping. As soon as you deemed it acceptable for you to place your moral stance on others, you accepted a society where other’s moral stance is being forced on you. Now you are pissed and worried because you don’t like the moral stance of others “having such a profound impact on society.”

Legalizing Prostitution in America would be giving the government control over the women involved. Taxes, testing, medical on and on; all aspects of prostitution would be controlled and regulated by the federal government.Where is that womans freedom when she becomes a mindless host of the government?

First of all, I never advocated any of those things. I didn’t involve government. I said a woman is free to open her legs at any point she chooses to any man she chooses and for any reason she chooses. Because it is her genitalia involved, it is none of your business. She isn’t telling you what to do with your private parts. It should be legal because she is not infringing on anyone’s rights in doing so. NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT NECESSARY.

But let’s suppose that you scenario played out. Why would you be opposed to a system that ensured her sexual health, ensured her an honest rate of pay, and didn’t involve her pimp slapping the shit out of her? And how exactly is the “slavery” that you portray for her any different than say…. the government’s regulation of a Doctor, a Banker, or a Chemist? Do they not pay taxes, meet government standards, or have health requirements?

I don’t know gents…perhaps I’m just old fashioned and need to “get with the times”.My mom and dad raised me to respect women and that sex was a gift given to mankind from God.

Are you implying that because I hold that position on prostitution that I don’t respect women? Mrs. Weapon will not be happy to hear that.

And my mom and dad said that sex was a act undertaken by most species on earth in order to procreate and that God has nothing to do with it. They also said that your bible is nothing more than a fictional book and that anyone who believes what it says is simply afraid to face a world where they are alone in deciding their own fate. They said that religion has never been anything more than a means for really smart people to take advantage of scared and weak-minded people. So do I get to pass laws that require you to act according to what I believe?

Now before you get angry at what I just said. My parents never said any such thing. I come from a religious family and so does my wife. My religion is not important, and what I believe is not important which is why I never allow it to creep into my discussions here. I just want to make sure that you understand that I am NOT saying any of those things in the previous paragraph about you. They are merely an example of a train of belief that is the opposite of yours. If that version is the majority opinion, do they have the right to legislate THEIR morality on you? That is the only point I was trying to make. I was not trying to insult you or your beliefs, so please try not to get upset by what I said. Focus on the concept, not the content.

I say missus’ and maam’ and I hold the door and allow women entrance first into a room. It’s out of respect I do this.

So do I. Your point is?

It’s also out of respect that I do not believe that a woman should have to demean herself or the act of creating life to get a few bucks to put food on her table and a roof over her head.

I also do not believe that a woman should have to demean herself or the act of creating a life for any reason. But I also believe that if she thinks sex is simply a good time and wants to do it for money, it is none of your business.

Overall TC, I think that you have a mistaken notion of freedom. It doesn’t mean that people can just go wild and do whatever they like. It means that they are free to do whatever they like so long as they don’t infringe on anyone else’s rights. The contradiction that you face is that you believe that your version of morality is the only correct one and thus should be made into law. Now that there are more people who feel differently than agree with you, you are in a tough situation, because you haven’t yet figured out that when you legislate morality, you allow others to legislate their morality onto you later. How is that working out for you in this new progressive era? Had we just stuck to the concepts of freedom and liberty from the beginning instead of attempting to legislate morality for the last 240 years, I imagine the progressives would not have any ground to stand on today.

I have to believe that when this country was founded, people for the most part held moral values not far from those of the original Puritans who had first arrived here (faults and all). ‘IF’ we had stuck to those original moral values while still correcting flaws such as slavery, I have to think our country would be one of a much higher standard of decency, and integrity, rather than where we are today. Our politicians today are a reflection of what we have all become. This New Wave thinking of today may be a great fad to join into when everything seems so hopeless but I think it is leading us closer to our ultimate demise.

So, Yes, we would have been better off as a country to have continued to force those original founding morals on others while refusing the ‘morals’ or ‘lack of morals’ being forced back onto our country.

Other than that I am a great believer in Freedom and Liberty, and please don’t outlaw my Cider or I will not comply!

Witch trials were one of the faults or flaws the Puritans overcame before the American Revolution. I believe the continued decline of our countries morals will destroy us. If only they had found a way to prevent this decline.

I think America is a victim of its own success. Too much easy living has destroyed the need for what’s known as common sense. Too many people no longer understand how the world works, just like many inner city kids think milk comes from cartons, not cows.

“Religion wielded as authority and law has served the Jewish peoples remarkably well over the centuries wouldn’t you say?”

– Not according to Jesus. 🙂 The Pharisees and Saducees were way out of line, and not due to towing the Roman line, but due to their own self righteous BS. Aside form that, The Jews have run their nation in a manner that is politically expedient rather than a true theocracy, at least when compared to the muslim states around them. Without that context, I would have to say they still come off a bit screwed up overall.

“Hrmm…sounds a bit contradictory there.If a countries people are not doing the right thing…such as robbing, murdering and raping then how is that government protecting its’ people?”

– Have you paid ANY attention to the repeated answers to this line of thinking? Robbing, murdering, raping, and a host of other moral violations ARE VIOLATIONS OF FREEDOM!!!! Morals not withstanding, these are still arenas within the jurisdiction of a government that is not legislating morality. THIS HAS BEEN POIJTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES TO YOU< PAY ATTENTION!!!

If a country's people are doing immoral things that do not infringe on the rights of others, such as doing drugs, engaging in consentual sex (paid for or not), engaging in homosexual activity including lifelong commitments of love, watching porn, using swear words, etc., no other individuals freedoms are breached, and no failure on the part of government has been experienced.

I believe that the continued declining morals in this country will indeed lead to its demise. I als believe that the decline is in large part due to the fact that we are using government, or at least law, as our standard of morality. Our standard of morality is a decision of our culture, which is an extension of us as individuals. It has nothing to do with our laws. In fact, the infiltration of legalized morality as a standard is, in my opinion, part of the reason for the loss in cultural morality. We do not hold standards on our own, but depend on governemtnt o hold them. Thus, our morality is subject to government. That is not moral, it is laziness. It is passing the buck. I don't let the law dictate my standards of morality, nor should our society. The use of government as an enforcement arm for morality is a temptation to cease to enforce it through social means and through real interaction with our neighbors and brethren. It was Christ's interaction with the people that made him have an impact, not his lobbying with the Jewish or Roman government, and it was the Jewish leaders embedding with government that caused their hypocrisy. Does the Bible mean nothing to you? Is it just do's and don'ts? Or is it a story of the realities of a society. Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world, it is ia matter of the heart, not of the damned legal system that determines who is part of the kingdom of God.

We will not be a moral society as long as we depend on a government to keep us moral. I may not have the same view of morality that you do, I may not even still abide by all the precepts of the Bible that I used to, but I can at least say that my morality is my own, not one that I depend on government to enforce for me because of my own fear or laziness. My morality will not change just because a law changes. I am not saying yours will, but the fact that you get so upset over the change means that you think society needs law to be moral. I submit to you that a society that needs a law to tell it to be moral or how to be moral is already lost, is already immoral. And it is not the fault of the governmetn that they are lost, it is the fault of the moral that we allow the rest of society to become so ignorant of morality and its real implications. I know that there are known impacts of certain immoral behaviors on a society. Lack of family focus, for instance, leads to major societal issues. Government cannot fix this. Only a return to family focus can, and that can only be accomplished by the society itself, which is a collective effort of the individuals in it. As Ghandi once said, be the change you want to see in the world. I am not a fan of Ghandi in many ways, but that statement in one that the religious and moral in our society would do well to remember.

Get your morals out of politics and into society, it cannot be in both places.

Morals and religion are a matter of truth.The difficult issue is discovering and discerning those truths.

Jon:”Government is in place to protect the freedom of its people, not to make sure the people “do the right thing”.”

Hrmm…sounds a bit contradictory there.If a countries people are not doing the right thing…such as robbing, murdering and raping then how is that government protecting its’ people?

Jon:”– Have you paid ANY attention to the repeated answers to this line of thinking? Robbing, murdering, raping, and a host of other moral violations ARE VIOLATIONS OF FREEDOM!!!!”

TC:Yes Jon, that’s basically what I said in my post…violations of natural right, freedom and moral beliefs!Yet you continue to fail to realize my point.If we had righteous moral leaders in congress then we wouldn’t have the immoral laws which allow more decline of our societies moral fortitude now would we?

You also continue to realize my point. If we had moral leaders and moral law, it would not fix an immoral society. It is not law that creates morality or faith. Look at Emporer Constantine near the end of the Roman Empire. If law could have saved that society, then it would have done so when he made Christianity the state religion.

It seems you are trying to do the same thing. You see a decline in the morality and quality of society and you are trying to use government to hang on to what morality is left and maybe even fix the problems you see. This will fail. You must change the society, not the laws. You must change the heart, not the appearance.

I agree that a truly free society wouldn’t have immoral laws. I also believe that it would require that each individual in that society have a high degree a personal responsibility and integrity. Human nature hasn’t changed since the beginning of human history. There will always be some part of the population that is irresponsible and lacking in integrity. How does society deal with them? I suggest that particular societies will find ways of doing it and must accept that there will always be some percentage of non-comformists to compensate for. What are your thoughts?

I’ve been asking myself that same question for quite some time!I’ll let ya’ know when I come to an answer that satisfies my sense of justice when compared to my belief in the reality of mankinds faults.

Teddy Roosevelt once said, “To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.”

This one statement can lead you to where my thoughts are now with this issue though! 🙂

I believe that letting people suffer the consequences of their actions is the best way to teach morality and critical thinking skills. Its also a great way to get a little personal satisfaction when you warn someone of a probable mistake, they tell you you’re an idiot, racist, whatever, and then come to you for help when it all goes down pretty much the way you said it would. I’ve recently had the opportunity for satisfaction thanks to a family member. This person may end up loosing their house as a resul tof their actions. Sure I could divert my little bit of money, but then I might loose my house instead. Since I’m not responsible for the Hope-N-Change that has caused me to adjust my financial planning, I don’t feel at all bad about it. The beauty of this, is I learned this little life lesson from my family. Sweet!

Morality can be taught, maybe, but that begins at a young age, and has nothing to do with whether the Constitution allows a certain type of marriage. That is neither instruction nor effective at fixing a society.

Also, a free society would have no immoral law, but it would also lack many laws that you would support that would be moral to you. A free society would not have the government involved in marriage at all, rather than dictating what marriage is or should be.

Please stop knocking the Crusades, all the other stuff was fine but it is total mis and disinformation to describe the Crusades as anything other than what they were, wars of defense against Islam on the rampage. Why is it that people forget North Africa, the Middle east and South West Asia were predominantly Christian until the rise of Islam. Ever hear of Constantinople?

TC:That is a false statement.The Islamic prophet Mohammed in the year 622A.D. decided to relocate his ministry base from Mecca to Medina, Arabia.During this time they were to adopt the sword of Jihad as the primary means of subduing the masses to the will of Allah.Mohammed began to proclaim that Allah was instructing all Muslims to use swords, not just words, to fight for the cause. The Muslims were able to conquer most of the known world in the 7th century with their means of using religion in an immoral manner to subdue and convert.Mohammed was successful in subduing all of Arabia under his control and at the time of his death he was planning to take Syria.Once the Arabian Peninsula was securely under Muslim control, it was time to look beyond its borders in furthering Islam’s influence. Between the years 637A.D. – 644A.D. the second Caliph, Omar, authorized a number of successful raids to subjugate many of the neighboring countries. Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Armenia, Iraq and Iran were all invaded and Islamisized.

In this present day the Muslims new sword is oil and immigration.

The First Crusade was a military expedition by Western Christianity to regain the Holy Lands taken by the Muslim conquest of the Levant, ending with the recapture of Jerusalem. Its’ primary goal was responding to an appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexius I, requesting that western volunteers come to his aid and help to repel the invading Turks from Anatolia.

Why you insist upon this “crusade” of your own to justify Islam I do not know Black Flag.You can not rewrite history.

I will only say one thing -I’ve talked about this subject enough lately 🙂 -if anyone believes that the loss of morality doesn’t have the potential to destroy this country-you are ignoring what you read in the papers everyday and that’s with laws. Without laws-who knows-all I can say at this point is maybe it would be alright and maybe it wouldn’t. Hows that for a solid position 🙂

I used to have a neighbor who was a lazy slob. His yard was such a mess I could hardly see the grass. Some people started a petition to force him to clean up his mess. I refused to sign as I felt it was his yard and no-one elses. When I tried to sell my house I could not sell it because no-one wanted to live next to such an eye sore. I still own it today. I let a bigger slob move in.

I wonder how many here who preach freedom would have put up with him as their neighbor. This non-violent lazy slob who would destroy propety values.

Given all the “moral” laws that are in place, including prostitution being illegal, how is it that our country has slipped into the morass that you think you see happening?

If as you contend, this is what we have with laws then why would we have more without the laws? The laws are obviously not really helping keep the immoral, moral are they.

Lack of what you call moral behavior has never destroyed a nation V.H.. Never. In fact it comes as a symptom of greater diseases that actually kill the patient. That is the govt controlled financial and monetary systems and the use of force to expand hegemony. As the nation deteriorates from this the sense of pride and hope is diminished and eventually depraved behavior starts to rise. This is what I see when looking back.

Far to often we confuse the last symptoms with the cause of death, and forget what the first symptoms were. We thus misdiagnose the disease itself.

“That is the govt controlled financial and monetary systems and the use of force to expand hegemony. As the nation deteriorates from this the sense of pride and hope is diminished and eventually depraved behavior starts to rise.”

TC:Wouldn’t that statement collude with morality not being maintained in our elected offices and therefore within our laws?

“There are far too many of you on this site that keep spouting off that a free society would be a lawless society, which means far too many of you haven’t been paying nearly enough attention.”

It can be confusing.

First I thought BF was against government and laws.

Second, it can take a while to learn the difference between a law protecting someone’s freedoms, and a law which is simply trying to force moral values on another.

Then to further confuse a person (me, lol) is trying to determine if a law which is enforcing morality could also be enforcing freedom. Example would be gay marriage, where some people think it hurts no-one and other people would disagree. Also, if a law is protecting an individuals freedom directly, or simple holding society to a high standard for the supposed benefits of all.

To sum it up, it can take time for us mere mortals to reconcile all the arguments and sometimes seeming contradictions.

I have been told I am a genius by getting no wrong answers on two different IQ tests. One was by Readers Digest and the other might have been Keystone Comics, I don’t recall….. lol.

I agree with you that a lack of morality has the potential to destroy the nation. I also believe that this nation is already mortally wounded, and that is just a question of when. There are several ‘hows’ to choose from.

WHY CAN IMMORALITY BE LEGISLATED MORE EASILY THAN MORALITY IN AMERICA?

I. INTRODUCTION

Law is inherently moral.1 Despite the common claim that “You cannot legislate
morality,” the truth is in fact the opposite; morality is all that can be legislated. Creating laws
involves drawing lines, declaring that this act is allowed while that one is forbidden. Whenever
legislators vote on a bill, they engage in a moral endeavor; they are telling the public that certain
behavior will not be tolerated. If you refuse to abide by the new law, you can expect the police to
pay you a visit and you will face the consequences for your decision. All legislators decide how
to vote based on their view of the bill’s rightness or wrongness, and each one’s morality
influences his choice. Members of the public will also view the law as moral or immoral based
on their moral presuppositions.
Many today deny that morality is absolute, and instead claim that each person can decide
what is moral. This view is clearly seen in the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Planned
Parenthood v. Casey:2 “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of
existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”3 Even though the
Court recently reaffirmed its commitment to this relativistic creed,4 it cannot consistently apply
it, for the result would be anarchy. If everyone were allowed to implement this credo fully, law
would be impossible; any attempt to draw a line would invariably infringe upon someone’s
“concept of existence.” As one Christian thinker has said, “Taken at its face . . . such language
can justify doing anything you please.”5 The Court has not yet applied this credo beyond the
issues of abortion and consensual sodomy, but that is little comfort: “If the Supreme Court has
not yet drawn these conclusions [applications of its credo to murder, rape, and terrorism], it
hardly matters. The conclusions follow from the Court’s premises.”6 The sheer relativism
espoused by the Court is spreading through American culture like cancer, and has our institutions
if higher learning in a stranglehold.7 On these premises, legislation cannot be moral or immoral
in any real sense, for each person’s opinion is just as valid as next one.
The titled question thus presupposes an absolute morality by which legislation can be
definitively declared moral or immoral. The Christian tradition has always recognized absolute
standards of right and wrong, rooted in the character of God.

1 See Robert George, , 15 REGENT U. L. REV. (2003).
2 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
3 Id. at 851.
4 See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
5 J. BUDZISZEWSKI, WHAT WE CAN’T NOT KNOW 168 (2003).
6 Id.
7 “But if the modern university is not theoretically Sophist, it is operationally Sophist, and the extremists
hold the high ground.” Id. at 169. By the term “Sophist,” Budziszewski means the philosophy that denies the
existence of unchanging truth.

II. THE NATURAL LAW

“It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a
testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men.”8 With these words, John Calvin identified the morality that is common to all men: the
natural law of God. All men know this law, for, as Calvin says, its work has been written on
man’s heart, so that he is without excuse.9 This natural law reflects the character of God, and is
the standard for human morality.
Christians have used different terminology to explain the workings of natural law. Saint
Thomas Aquinas viewed natural law as a reflection of God’s eternal law, discerned by right
reason.10 Sir William Blackstone described the law of nature as the will of the Creator, which is
known to man by reason (natural law) and by direct revelation (Scripture).11 Professor J.
Budziszewski has described natural law as being “built into the design of human nature and
woven into the fabric of the normal human mind.”12 The natural law is the revelation of God in
nature, as expressed in the Psalms: “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their
expanse is declaring the work of his hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night
reveals knowledge.”13 God has created the world in such a way that man cannot help but know
that there is a God and that He has set forth rules for human conduct. God’s creation includes
man, who, as Budziszewski notes, has moral categories written into his thinking. While a
newborn may not know that it is wrong to kill his next door neighbor without cause, as soon as
the child understands the meaning of the terms “kill,” “neighbor,” “cause,” and so forth, he
understands that killing innocent human life is wrong, and this understanding has moral force. In
the same way, when a man stands on the brink of a precipice, his mind tells him that if he takes
one more step, he will fall farther than he has ever fallen; he will fall far enough to die. At the
same time, his heart tells him that it is wrong to kill himself, and the conscience puts together the
impulses of the heart and the thoughts of the mind. The man concludes that it is wrong for him to
take another step.14 This is moral reasoning; humans cannot reason in any other way. This is the
natural law.
The natural law is the foundation for human law: “Consequently every human law has
just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it
deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law.”15 Aquinas argued
that human law is law only to the extent that it reflects the natural law. Calvin also taught that
equity (essentially a natural law concept) ought to be the pattern for human law: “[T]his equity
alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws.”16 The natural law is absolute and
unchanging; it is the same for all men at all times. It defines what is moral and immoral. If
human law is consistent with the natural law, it is moral; if it is inconsistent with the natural law,it is immoral. Armed with this absolute standard, it is now possible to explain why American
legislation gravitates to immorality.

8 2 JOHN CALVIN, INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION 1504 (Ford Lewis Battles trans., John T.
McNeill ed., 1960).
9 See Romans 1:20-21, 2:15.
10 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGICA I-II, Q. 93, art. 3 (Fathers of the English Dominican
Province trans., Christian Classics ed. 1981) (1273); see also id., Q. 94, art. 2 (“Wherefore according to the order of
natural inclinations, is the order of the precepts of the natural law.”).
11 1 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND *39.
12 BUDZISZEWSKI, supra note 5, at 14.
13 Psalm 19:1-2.
14 I am indebted to Dr. Joseph N. Kickasola of Regent University for this example.
15 AQUINAS, supra note 10, Q. 95, art. 2; see also BLACKSTONE, supra note 11, at *42 (“Upon these two
foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws
should be suffered to contradict these.”).
16 CALVIN, supra note 8; cf. THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH, chapter XIX (1646) (judicial law
of the Old Testament not binding except to the extent of general equity).

III. A CULTURE IN DENIAL

While all men know the natural law, not all men love the natural law. Man is fallen, and
therefore he hates the things of God, including His law.17 Even so, man cannot escape the natural
law and its commands any more than he can cease to be human. His conscience punishes him for
rejecting the law he knows; he feels guilty and attempts to rationalize or expiate his deeds in
some way, but finds no relief.18 Man’s conscience grows harder and harder to the work of the
law written on his heart. Fallen man thus pursues immorality more and more, as G.K. Chesterton
once remarked: “Men may keep a sort of level of good, but no man has ever been able to keep on
one level of evil. That road goes down and down.”19 Denial of the natural law is one reason why
men reject its use in making laws for the good of all.
Professor Budziszewski points to other reasons why natural law is spurned. First, we live
in an era where tradition is despised; if it is not new, it cannot be good. Forsaken are the old
paths, the wisdom of generations past; instead, the culture listens to the latest pop icon. Second,
the common man can no longer contribute anything meaningful to society. No one can speak
with authority unless he is an “expert” in that field; knowledge is the business of a few, limited
to those who can rise through an academia controlled by the relativistic elite. Third, as
mentioned above, relativism has a death grip on culture at large and universities in particular.
Fourth, public reflection on issues of importance is nonexistent. People’s attention span has been
conditioned by the length of television commercials, as has the depth of their thinking. People no
longer read the great books of the Western tradition, nor do they care. Fifth, no one is shocked by
immorality anymore. People have grown so accustomed to seeing horrific spectacles, called
entertainment, that nothing can awaken their shame. Sixth, immaturity is encouraged as
adolescence is prolonged. Parents think it is normal for children to become rebellious in their
teens, and no one is encouraged to shoulder real responsibility until sometime after college.
Lastly, feelings are exalted as the final authority; conforming your conduct to an objective
standard is bondage, so you must reject external standards and do what feels right.20
Natural law is constant; it never changes. In the past great men understood and applied it
to the civil government and to civil law. Now, the indicia of moral breakdown identified by
Budziszewski are clearly seen in America. History is rewritten to reflect modern virtues,
particularly cultural relativism. Columbus is no longer viewed as a great man motivated to
advance the Christian faith, but is now a racist bigot who oppressed the natives by trying to
evangelize them. Students in modern universities are uncomfortable even questioning the
morality of the heinous events of September 11, 2001. The commercials surrounding the Super
Bowl are filled with crass, libidinous material, as if the advertisers are competing with each other
to create the raunchiest ad—and the public loves it.21
The words of the poet are easily adapted: “Milton! Thou shouldst be living at this hour:
America hath need of thee: she is a fen of stagnant waters . . . .”22 Americans no longer have a
moral consensus, and the culture today provides ready relief for those haunted by a guilty
conscience. Psychologists explain away the guilty feelings, abundant entertainment provides a
ready diversion, the scandalous lifestyles of celebrities confirm familial breakdown for the
masses, and many rationalize horrific practices on the grounds that they are legal. If this picture
describes America, it becomes clear why immorality is so easy to legislate in America today.

17 See Romans 3:10-18.
18 For an excellent discussion of natural law and the conscience, see BUDZISZEWSKI, supra note 5, at 139-
60.
19 Id. at 159 (quoting G.K. CHESTERTON, THE PENGUIN COMPLETE FATHER BROWN 63 (Penguin Books
1981)).
20 See id. at 162-81.
21 See PETER JONES, CAPTURING THE PAGAN MIND 40-52 (2003). Dr. Jones gives many examples of the
immorality that is rampant in our culture.

IV. LEGISLATION IN AMERICA
America is a constitutional republic. The people elect officials to represent them, and
these officials create the law. It is a simple step to say that America’s laws reflect America’s
people. If America’s laws are immoral it is because America’s people are immoral. The people
cannot blame their representatives in Congress or in state legislatures, for they chose these men
and women to represent them. A majority of votes sends a candidate to the legislature; there, a
majority of votes sends a bill to the executive. The majority thus controls the legislative process
in America, but it would be naïve to deny that intense battles are fought in which the lawmakers
on both sides of the issue try to persuade their uncommitted colleagues to join them. This
phenomenon further exacerbates the problem since the middle ground is often occupied by
people who do not have a firm moral stance, but are persuaded by whims of public opinion.
Here, then, is the answer to our question: it is easier to legislate immorality than morality
in America because that is what America wants. The laws reflect the people, a majority of
whom, as this essay has argued, love darkness rather than light. These people know the natural
law, but deny it and relegate it to the trash heap of historical irrelevance. What they do is
immoral, for the natural law is still true even if it is rejected. The created order can be suppressed
for only so long before it springs back with a vengeance. Those who break God’s law will face
the consequences. This is equally true of cultures as it is of individuals.
While America has fallen from the morality that once upheld it, we still have hope that
the course may be changed by the grace of God. The current conflict between good and evil in
this country is nothing but the latest battle in a great war that is almost as old as mankind. The
seed of the serpent is at war with the seed of the woman,23 and this fight will continue until the
Lord returns. Saint Augustine described this struggle well: “[T]wo cities have been formed by
two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love
of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the
Lord.”24 We can have confidence that the heavenly city will ultimately triumph through the
foolishness of the cross, as Augustine expressed: “But in the other city there is no human
wisdom, but only godliness, which offers due worship to the true God, and looks for its reward in
the society of the saints, of holy angels as well as holy men, ‘that God may be all in all.’”25
Amen.

Indeed, our leaders and laws are immoral because we are. I do not believe that changing the laws will reverse that. Removing the immoral law, perhaps, not not implementing moral law. However, even the removal of immoral law will not fix everything, it just allows the moral to be free to be moral.

Many consider it a moral thing to help thy neighbor. It is not a violation of morality to have government charity, but it is a violation of natural law. It is a violation of freedom. In the end, government charity is less effective at helping people, and as such could be counted as not moral or less moral, but on the surface it does not seem to be a bad thing, especially since many have used social safety nets properly. It is immoral to use force to create a false morality, perhaps, but most do not see into things that deeply.

In other words, a truly moral society would be subject to natural law as well, preventing moral law that would otherwise be enacted. Some of the laws you support, however, violate these natural laws, or at least violate freedom. How do you justify this?

I would agree that most, if not all, violations of natural law would indeed also violate your brand of righteous morality, but I do not agree that all violations of your brand of righteous morality would violate natural law.

I was under the impression that you supported constitutional/legal definitions of marriage. Am I incorrect or have I mixed you up with someone else? This may not be the only example, but it is easy to argue and commonly opposed on moral grounds, so I use it a lot. To have government involved in the legalization or restriction of marriage is a violation of freedom and natural law. A marriage is a relationship, and to some extent and in most cases, a contractual arrangement that involves shared ownership of property and custody of dependents. To restrict such a voluntary transaction/relationship or to force the allowance of it is a violation of natural law.

There would be a long and arduous road to restoring righteous morality to a nation or culture. The larger the culture and more varied the definition of righteousness, the harder it is. One of the first and biggest steps, however, that is within the realm of possibility, would be to institute a voucher program for education. We MUST get government out of education. This was one of the biggest errors of the founding fathers. We do not want government in charge of the next generation. To open up the financial ability of individuals to choose whatever school they want, without restriction on what school was chosen so long as they obey the law, would be a huge step towards morality. Parents would be able to choose their child’s education, and they would have motivation to do so. If vouchers were made a requirement and the education system was removed from government hands entirely it would be that much better. We also need to get away from the “grouping” mentality whereby children are lumped together with their peers as their primary influence.

I also believe that the removal of government from moral roles and the clear communication that government will not accept the responsibility to decide what the “right thing to do” is, and will only be responsible to ensure that when doing the right, or wrong thing, rights are not violated. It is the very dependence on legal status to determine right or wrong that has made the culture lazy in deciding what is ok or not. We do not want the FCC regulating what can be shown on TV. We want the FCC, as its final act, to decline the responsibility and remind people it is up to them. Buyer beware.

In the interest of extending this debate TC, I will try to write some of this into an article on my own blog. I have had inconsistent computer access lately, but I will get to it I assure you. If you would like to remind me to, I would welcome that, and I officially give USW permission to give you my email address. I spent a LOT of time and thought on how to rectify religious beliefs with my philosophy of freedom, especially during my transition from christian conservative to libertarian. I would love to have you join me on that path, sharing what I found with you and maybe having you show me some errors or missed things in my thinking. 🙂
Cheers
Jon

USW:”I support those laws because they stop people from infringing on natural rights.”

TC:Why yes I quite agree with you that the laws are in place to stop infringement upon natural rights; although, I disagree with your belief that a natural right is not enforced from a persons moral stance.

USW”…are you really going to attempt to claim that law today is a means of enforcing morality?”

TC:Nope.By no means.I believe that over the course of Americas’ history the law has has been legislated by immorality instead of morality, thereby infringing upon ones natural rights.Perhaps our views on whether natural rights are affected by morality differ?I do not mean determined by: I do mean affected.

USW:”However, you do tend to allow emotion to cloud your judgement…I say this because you will often use the same logical thought process as those you oppose, and yet don’t see that you are doing so.”

TC:Well, were all entitled to an opinion and I do so disagree with this one!I believe you may be stereotyping me as a right wing religious radical!Nothing could be further from the truth!

USW:”Now you are pissed and worried because you don’t like the moral stance of others “having such a profound impact on society.””

TC:No, that is not correct. I am now upset with my fellow mankinds immoral stance having such a profound impact upon the society I am a part of.

USW:”But let’s suppose that you scenario played out. Why would you be opposed to a system that ensured her sexual health, ensured her an honest rate of pay, and didn’t involve her pimp slapping the shit out of her? And how exactly is the “slavery” that you portray for her any different than say…. the government’s regulation of a Doctor, a Banker, or a Chemist?”

TC:I am opposed for the simple fact that the system would be against her natural rights.Just as I am opposed to the type of regulation currently imposed on the three other professions you stated.That is supposition you stating her health, rate of pay and safety would be protected.

USW:”My religion is not important, and what I believe is not important which is why I never allow it to creep into my discussions here.”

TC:We disagree here then.I believe a persons religion influences their moral character and definition of natural law.Very important to politicians as this has played out as a win or lose issue in many an election.As history has shown with the loss of morals in our society/country it just doesn’t seem to play out as a key issue as much in certain geographic regions of the union.

USW:(In regards to the anti-religious society legislating their immoral beliefs upon me scenario)”If that version is the majority opinion, do they have the right to legislate THEIR morality on you?”

TC:Exactly!That was one of the major driving forces behind the colonization of North America.Freedom of religion and oppressive government.Open your eyes and you will see the islamization of Europe and liberal initiative as a reverse de facto of that trend.This countries morals have been under attack and changing for quite some time now.The options are to either leave or fight for what I believe is right according to my moral stance.

USW:”Overall TC, I think that you have a mistaken notion of freedom. It doesn’t mean that people can just go wild and do whatever they like. It means that they are free to do whatever they like so long as they don’t infringe on anyone else’s rights. The contradiction that you face is that you believe that your version of morality is the only correct one and thus should be made into law.”

TC:No USW you have it all wrong.My version of morality is based soley upon natural law.Is yours?The only correct version of morality from a definitive stance is according to natural law.I pose this to you.If I believe someone elses immorality to be against natural law, morality if you so deem it; then perhaps my natural rights are being violated?

I’m having fun reading this debate, and will not intervene, but you made an offer for some jelly/jam that I have never heard of. I will gladly pay to recieve such, as it sounds really good. USW can provide my E-mail address and would gladly share some of my goodies from the North if you would like!

Here’s an excerpt from an excerpt from a book about Obama’s grand plan for America. I might have to order this one.

Fundamental Change Means Subverting the Constitution

Barack Obama ran on just two words: hope and change. But those are just a couple of words; they’re not a plan for governing a nation. For those who were paying attention, he promised to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America. That’s his plan, and he’s working on it every day.

Those who listened to more than hope ’n’ change started to hear things that didn’t sound quite so “hopey.” Obama talked about the “wealthy” paying their “fair share.” He spoke about ditching traditional energy sources like coal and oil. He crooned about giving away trillions of dollars’ worth of free stuff—health care, education . . . everything you might ask for except guns. (Because he says that people only cling to guns—or religion—out of “bitterness.”)

But everyone knows that such things don’t come for free. If he wants to spend trillions of dollars, then those dollars have to come from somewhere. So people who listened past the slogans knew there was more to the Obama plan than just hope ’n’ change.

Once President Obama took office, we saw our worst fears realized. Legions of powerful officials, not confirmed by the Senate and not subject to congressional oversight, have been installed in key positions. The government is taking over massive corporations and attempting to take over entire sectors of our economy. To maximize the number of people who see things his way, the president is working to silence dissenting voices, shut down media outlets that expose the truth, and co-opt the rest of the media to parrot his daily messages. To make sure these changes outlast him, Obama’s blueprint calls for changing the way Americans think about government, and even the way Americans think about themselves.

Hi Ray….how goes it, sir? How’s the family? Spring coming on up there yet? Less wood to chop? Spring has arrived here….warm days, cool nights, plenty of moisture…the weeds seemed to have absorbed some sort of alien gene and have mutated into something invasive…they are more plentiful and higher than normal. I am sure that there is an alien plot to take over the world with weeds.(no Matt, not the smoking kind) it seems that I can hear them talking at night about how nothing can stop them…..or it might just be the voices in my head….in my head….in my head….

Hey D13 – weather up here bounces around – this will be the first full year of yardwork with having my son around – I’ve quickly found that the solace I found in cutting (shaving) my lawn or chopping wood is now replaced by the amazing laughs and giggles and playfulness of having an 11 month old son. Wish I could do both – man if there were only enough hours in the day. Thank goodness for longer daylight – nothing is more satisfying than spending time with my wife, the baby, taking the dogs for a walk/run and then plowing through enough yardwork to keep things neat/nice and then enjoying a beer so cold it hurts your teeth.

Too late for me to write tonight. The MRS is down with something that has her sneezing all over the place, and I got a touch of laryngitis. The desert is blooming and there is pollen clouding the air.

Take care of your back, young man, its the only one you’ve got.

Has anyone else noticed that the great state of Arizona has been pronounced a “NAZI” state by all the media? I hear the the Messiah hisself thinks that all cops in AZ will just jump to the chance to “profile” and harass all people of Hispanic descent just because they are “brown” . . . . . Yeah, right.

There is going to be a “non-binding” vote in the House this coming Thursday to accept Puerto Rico into statehood . . . Really? Is that how its done nowadays? And to think that it was up to those people that lived there that had to vote for statehood . . . and THEN the House and the Senate got to vote on it, not the other way around. What is going on here?

The protests against AZ SB1070 got very violent yesterday and caused injury to some Phoenix cops, and STILL the Phoenix Mayor supports the illegal aliens in this country! It is high time the people in Phoenix got together and gave him an eviction notice!

Just posting for the e-mails so I can read along today, but would like to say tha I feel for those in the Southwest who are dealing with this issue, and expect it to get worse. Immigration reform (amnesty) is nothing but a vote getter, and will really hurt the states more than anyone could imagine. However, I see much of this issue being planned and purpatrated by our own Government. there are too many signs that point to something more than immigration reform, and it all involves money.

Obama: Make Illegals Register and Learn English
By Doug Powers • April 28, 2010 08:38 AM Obama has blasted the new Arizona illegal alien law that 70% of Arizona votors favor as “poorly conceived” before his justice has even finished its review (a “poorly conceived” law to the Obama administration being one that the signatory actually took the time to read). But in the same speech, Obama also said that illegals shouldn’t be harrassed with requests for papers, but rather the US should “make them register, make them pay a fine, make them learn English.”

And exactly how do we know who needs to register without checking IDs? Naturally, Obama doesn’t mean any of it — except maybe the “register” part. I have no doubt the goal is to get illegals to register… as Democrat voters.

As a Senator, Obama voted “no” on making English the official language for the US government. If Obama doesn’t care if I can understand what the clerk at the DMV is saying when I’m trying to renew my driver’s license (which I have to produce papers for, by the way), I seriously doubt he cares if a construction worker in Tuscon can speak English.

Has anyone else noticed that the great state of Arizona has been pronounced a “NAZI” state by all the media?

Many have compared Obama to Hilter and the Nazis, because “you know, I think that’s what he is…”

But when the great state of Arizona has been pronounced a “NAZI” state by all the media, because they passed a law requiring anyone the police think might be illegal to show them their papers, you get upset??

See, the reason they’re being compared to the Nazis…is because the Nazis did that too…

Hitler was a man of the Left and the National Socialists, well, the name speaks for itself. Since the Left is pretty much for what the Nazis were for, (minus the death camps unless you want to count the FEMA camps) I guess the modern left wins hands down for being like the Nazis.

Hitler was not a liberal in any way, shape, or form. The Nazis were not environmentalists nor were they proponents of universal health care coverage. Even if they were socialists (which wouldn’t explain why they attacked their soviet brethren), that doesn’t mean anybody you think is a socialist is automatically a Nazi (btw, Obama is no more of a socialist than Warren Buffett).

Can we just give up the whole Hitler/Nazi meme altogether? While we’re at it let’s get rid of fascist, communist, Marxist, wingnut, teabagger, bible-basher, Bircher, birther, etc. too.

Hitler and the Party were most certainly environmentalists and Socialists.

The worse hatred are for those that are ideologically “almost” the same as you – because they are “so close” to the “truth”, yet so far.

Communists and Nazis competed for the same vote.

Later, in the war, Hitler was perfectly aware Stalin was ready to claim all of Poland and the Baltic States – and threaten the German heartland.

The Nazis had a powerful anti-tobacco movement, arguably the most powerful in the world at that time.

Tobacco was said to be a “corrupting force in a rotting civilization that has become lazy.” The Nazis’ anti-tobacco rhetoric drew from an earlier generation’s eugenics rhetoric and also reflected an ethic of bodily purity and zeal for work.3 Tobacco use was attacked as an “epidemic,” a “plague,” as “dry drunkenness,” and as “lung masturbation”; tobacco and alcohol abuses were “diseases of civilization” and “relics of a liberal lifestyle.”

The German social insurance and health care system began in the 1880s under Bismarck. Ironically, it was part of Bismarck’s “anti-socialist” legislation, adopted under the theory that a little socialism would prevent the rise of a more virulent socialism.

With the world economic crisis of 1929, welfare state expenditures had to be reduced for housing, nutrition, support payments, recreation and rehabilitation, and maternal and child health.

One of the first Nazi laws, passed July 14, 1933, was the “Law for the Prevention of Progeny of Hereditary Disease,” intended to “consolidate” social and health policies in the German population and prohibit the right of reproduction for persons defined as “genetically inferior.”

.. National Socialists next implemented a strategy of euthanasia to solve the remaining problem of those whose conception and birth had preceded these laws.

Nazi medicine was implemented by a political-medical complex—on the basis of political health care—a scientific and social philosophy imposed by a totalitarian regime.

Politicized medicine is not a sufficient cause of the mass extermination of human beings, but it seems to be a necessary cause.

“The Nazis deemed the greatest threat to the Aryan race and the German nation as the Jewish race, which the Nazis described as being a parasitic race that has attached itself to various ideologies and movements to secure its self-preservation, such as the Enlightenment, liberalism, democracy, parliamentary politics, capitalism, industrialization, Marxism, and trade unions.”

“Nazism, however, rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction.[“

A good idea is a good idea. Trying to equate the Dems with the Nazis because they shared ideas is a logical fallacy. The whole point of comparing the two is to sling mud, not provide any worthwhile comparisons.

Besides, I wasn’t cherry picking. Those are the relevant passages of an article you suggested.

How are the Democrats trying to encourage a classless national solidarity? It seems to me that the Republicans are the ones trying to get rid of hyphenated Americans and always crying foul about class warfare.

You’re right. Hitler and Obama aren’t alike. Hilter was a excellent speaker. Obama can’t even put a sentence together without a teleprompter or a script in front of him.

I’d gladly give up the name calling. Let’s see if the Left and their media mouthpieces can do the same when they have their television shows. They can lead by example! I don’t have a national platform, nor am I the one comparing/protesting Arizona to the Nazis on said airwaves, for enforcing immigration laws. Hell, I’m not even the one who got artistic with a can of refried beans.

The only talkie-films of Hitler were his speeches. We gather our opinions of him from his “acting” appearances only.

Eva had made numerous home videos on the “high tech” movie camera – but they were silent.

So, the intimate movies of Hitler, we do not know what he said.

A deaf scientist created a lip-reading program, and used in on the movies. We now know what Hitler said in the movies.

It is astounding!

As many other, I had watched these old movies – one, where Hitler was reviewing the last map of the Eastern Front trough a magnifying glass.

Suddenly he waves his arm and his generals move to comfort him. The assumption was he saw something that made him mad and he lashed out (he was a maniac, you know!).

But now, we can read his lips. He was indeed discussing the Eastern Front – but it was at a time after the bomb assassination attempt.

What he really did and say was “Damn, my bad arm is hurting!” And he waves it around in an attempt to relieve the pain! His generals are humanly concerned about Hitler’s discomfort and reach to take the magnifying glass from him and to hold the maps up for him! Completely different take!

In another, it appears he approaches the camera with anger and force.

Now, it is we know differnt.

Eva is filming. He moves directly toward her saying “Why is such a beautiful woman standing behind the camera filming an old man. You should be in front, not me!”

That’s cool. I don’t think I’ll be able to get it though. Speedy with good connectivity to the internet, is one of those luxuries that is traded for living in ‘paradise’. They keep threating to give us faster internet ‘when the fiber optic cable arrives’. Sigh…

I’ve been meaning to thank you for the iodine drops tip. I ordered the stuff and began taking the drops a few weeks ago. WOW! What an improvement! My skin is so much better. Its still a little dry but not nearly so much, the puffiness in my face is reduced, I’m starting to have more energy AND, I’ve dropped a few pounds(even when I went on a work schedule that usually adds a few)! My jeans are getting looser! The muscle craps are decreasing too. What an amazing difference. I’ve felt for decades that I’ve had a throid problem but every time I’d go to the doctor, they’d test my blood, charge me out the wazoo, and then tell me that my thyroid is fine and that I should eat less and move more. The last time I went, I was told it was ‘menopause’. BULLSHIT! Anyway, thanks again. You’ve made a noticable improvement in my quality of life.

Cyndi – your insinuations that the modern Democratic party are a but a few “FEMA camps” short of being the successors to the Nazi party of Germany is utterly ridiculous. Most of us here do try and engage in reasoned debate – those of us “from the left” who are in varying degrees from the left (Chris, Todd, Mathius, Buck, Charlie, etc) come here for different reasons – not the least of which is to engage in reasoned debate and have a little fun doing it. If you’ve noticed, several of us supposed “O-bots” have made attempts to tone down the rhetoric, limit the inflammatory b.s. and focus more on discourse – do you think you are capable of the same?

And being asked to show your papers is different from being asked for license and registration how? Come to think of it, federal law ALREADY requires that someone suspected of being illegal show their papers. As a matter of fact, this law does absolutely nothing that federal law doesn’t already require, Todd. It merely ENFORCES what the federal government refuses to. Stop pretending it is something that it isn’t.

That is funny because I just replied to LOI on that very subject before I read this response from you. I would have to say that, yes, the same standard applies to health care and the death panel debates.

But you avoid my points, my friend. The Arizona law does nothing that federal law doesn’t already require, it merely enforces it. They were VERY careful in crafting this law to stand up to constitutional muster.

We’ve had this discussion on insurance companies before BF — these companies have done tremendous good in the past but they have also made extremely bad decisions that affect (literally) their consumers’ lives.

Sure the agreement is going to be written with a loophole and I don’t fault the companies for using that loophole for their benefit. This is the main problem, in my opinion, with a profit-driven model in health care.

“Better” is entirely subjective. Sometimes better means efficiency through process improvement or economies of scale. Other times it means substituting inferior quality goods in the hopes that nobody notices.

Managing the perceptions of consumers has become more important than actually giving them what they asked for (or what was advertised) in many cases. Check out the way things are packaged these days to give the perception of more (or the same as before but at greater cost). While it may be entirely acceptable to substitute generic medications when there is no therapeutic difference from the name brand equivalent, it is not cool to shrink the size of a coffee can while charging the same price as last year. The grocery store shelves are full of plenty of such examples. Does it make the companies more profitable? Perhaps. But without consumer watchdog groups or OCD label readers this mostly goes unnoticed. Is this “better”?

The other thing about profit is that it is only one of many motivations for human action. Empathy, concern, and other philanthropic notions are just as powerful but actively discouraged by free-market prophets. Cooperation is just as much a source of efficiency as competition (I would even argue that it is more so). Competition encourages cheating and deceit. Please explain how cooperative or philanthropic enterprise encourages such bad habits.

No form of motivation is perfect and there is a time and a place for them all, but arguing that the profit motive or competition are the only ways to achieve every goal seems awfully naive.

The Arizona law only allows officials to ask for paperwork if they are engaged with a person for a valid legal reason, Ray. They cannot just randomly ask for papers. And their request is no different than what federal law already requires.

USW, I don’t think that’s entirely correct (or at the very least it is correct but misstates the problem). The AZ law permits a cop to ask anyone who he is ‘reasonably suspicious of being an illegal immigrant’ while at a legal stop – however, since it is against the law to be on US soil illegally (trespass) there is no teeth to this ‘limitation’ whatsoever.

The officer cannot just walk up to someone and ask for proof of that persons citizenship – THAT is “profiling”. However, should the officer be engaged in interaction with this person for another unrelated matter, and that person (by some manner of behavior) causes that officer to suspect that the individual is in this country illegally (remember that this officer has to make a written report explaining in painstaking detail all of his actions and suspicions) then and only then can he request proof of citizenship.

Being a cop just isn’t like it is in the movies or on television (not even the reality shows like “cops”) because what the cop does on the street is only ten percent of the job, the other ninety percent is paperwork – and I do mean TONS of paperwork! Literally everything a cop does has to be written down in painstaking detail with absolutely NOTHING omitted. Why? LAWYERS, that’s why. When a case goes to court the defense attorney picks through every second of what each and every officer on the scene did, said, sneezed or spit. More criminal cases have been dismissed because the cop on the scene didn’t use proper English in his written report than for the wrong guy being arrested.

1) What would that individual do to cause a reasonable suspicion of his illegal status? I honestly cannot think of anything at the moment. Given I desparately need more coffee right now though…

2) One of the reasons to make a ‘lawful stop’ is for reasonable suspicion of illegal behavior. Being in this country illegally is illegal behavior; so if an officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally, that can warrant a lawful stop in and of itself.

Illegal migrants give themselves away most of the time. It is not their color but where they hang in groups, how they react to others and little things like No Driver’s license or worse yet, a forgery.

When the INS or cops drive by they turn away, look down or scatter like quail.

It is obvious you guys have never been around a lot of illegal migrants.

All this pissing and whining is pure bull crap boys. It is political theater of the most vile nature.

You guys made fun of the conspiracy link Cyndi provided. While there is much garbage there, it also contains much fact about how this administration and the Dems use strawman and accusations to destroy those they oppose.

You are being played by experts.

If real racial profiling occurs it will be found. Buck, you know the law is full of discussion about what constitutes “reasonable suspicion”.

1) It has already been established by our legislature that there are ample Federal Laws on the books that are “perfectly” designed to prevent illegal immigration. The Texas Legislature decided last year that additional laws were not necessary if the Federal Law was enforced. States can enforce Federal Law.

2) Governor Perry and the Legislature, in mostly bipartisan fashion, has decided to enforce the law. There has always been a misconception that only Federal Authorities can enforce Federal Law and that is not true. The individual state can enforce Federal Law. Texas is doing that. When an illegal is captured and ICE is called, we all know that ICE OR INS will NOT come and pick them up. ICE and INS have been directed (everyone knows this as well) to not pick them up…at that point it is no longer Federal…it becomes a State problem. The Feds are leaving it up to the State knowing that the local jail system cannot hold them all. However, if a STATE law is broken, then they can hold them, book them, jail them, or take them to the border, finger print them and turn them loose. Trespassing is such a law that is now being rigidly enforced. ( This is cattle country…trespassing, horse theft, cattle rustling, and messing with our women is worse that robbing a bank ). The Texas border is 90-95% ranch land and it is duly recorded and fenced. The ranchers and the Cattlemen’s Association have even posted signage on their fences and gates that clearly state no trespassing and state the penalty for it. The ranchers and the Cattlemen’s Association have also held town meetings in all the border cities advising each other of the rights of a property owner and in cooperation with the Law Enforcement (Texas Rangers, DPS, Local policing agencies), the ranchers have legally become “law enforcement” of their OWN property. In Texas, we have the right to defend our property with any means necessary up to and including the use of deadly force. We do not have to drag an arm inside the window or show forceful entry to a home. So……the ranchers are now taking stronger steps to protect their fence lines and property. The only draw back (and it is not much of one) is that it is unfortunate that if an illegal searching for work, is crossing a fence line in the middle of the night, they are not going to be asked “who are you”? A property owner does not have to abide by any Miranda in the protection of property. You are trespassing and you do not have a right to be silent and you do not have a right to an attorney, and you do not have a right to due process. The only due process out in the “bush” is a bullet.

Criminal Trespass in Texas is found under Texas Penal Code – Section 30.05. Criminal Trespass. If you look at this law, it even shows you that we can mark trees, rocks, and any other identifiable structure or natural object to define our property lines.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

AS you can see, the above statute applies to the deadly force issue. It leaves the determination of deadly force up to the individual as well. This education has been disseminated to all property owners. There is a HUGE education process going on right now and I am glad to say I am part of that education process. Also notice that the above description is broad….to protect LAND or tangible moveable property. Texas has good laws and we will enforce them.

Hell, this even passes the BLACK FLAG test of violence on non violent people. The minute a person trespasses….they ceased to be non violent. They are there UNINVITED. Actually Black Flag gave me the idea to help form such an education process. We are protecting our property. Period.

3) We are forming groups in the cities to take pictures of the groups of “workers” standing at the Home Depots and the Loews and other building sites. The “workers” are not allowed to congregate on private property so, therefore, they are on the public streets. This is loitering and enforceable by ordinance, however, I do not expect the police to enforce this unless it is a public nuisance. We simply park a truck, on public streets, next to these groups of “workers” who try to wave down every pick up truck that pulls into Home Depot or Loews, and will take pictures of the license plates of the trucks that pick the workers up. This is becoming very effective. But, usually what happens, is that when a camera is seen….it is like a covey of quail scattering to the 4 winds.

4) We set up in public access points outside of gardening centers, construction sites, roofing projects, etc. and take pictures of the pick up truck license plates that drive up with a bed full of “workers”.

5) There are neighborhoods that are zoned for single family dwelling that have built-in their garages and have multiple families staying there. It is very simple from the public streets to write down addresses and turn them in to the city officials with a complaint then follow up on that complaint. The city will usually investigate because most garages and facilities that are built-in have been done so without permits to do so and the city loses tax revenue….and LORD knows that every city wants that tax revenue.

These things that are non violent are actually very effective. Keep the pressure on and they will go to New Mexico or Arizona or California. We hope they go to California…or come into our State legally.

Oh, and if anyone has any doubts about our guns here….I am sure that Governor Perry’s actions yesterday has made the news….if not….he was out jogging and encountered a coyote (animal type) and when attacked by it, pulls out his laser sighted pistol and drops it….one shot.

D13,
A little info from the Fed side of this. The main reason ICE or the any other of the Feds don’t pick up all of the illegals and/or prosecute them is because we can’t, we don’t have the personnel or the space to house them. I know of two ICE detention centers around the metroplex–they both stay full. After that they are housed in contract facilities(usually county jails). Another problem is prosecuting them (repeat offenders not just simple deportation cases) federally. In Fort Worth we only have two Federal District court Judges, on Monday one judge had some sentencings- 75% of them were Illegal re-entry after deportation cases, which typically means that they have atleast one aggravated felony conviction. These guys that catch the re-entry cases make up a small percentage of illegals. So, you can guess what would happen to the Fed courts, prisons, etc..if we started rounding up all the illegals that could be charged criminally. By the way, I am all for what Texas is doing. I just wanted to present some anecdotal info from the fed side. Also, if you ever want more specific stuff or anything pertaining to our area feel free to contact me–I’m sure USW can get you my my email.

Nice catch and info from the Fed side. I had heard that one of the reasons was that there were no places for them and they are just turned loose. I did not know that the repeat offenders are keeping the Feds that busy. Interesting. Thanks for the insight….I will delve a little more into this.

Are you Fed Law Enforcement or Fed Administrative?

@USW….email for Displaced Okie, please sir. It would be nice to meet a SUFA face to face. Thank you.

I am in fed enforcement, but it seems like I have been spending more and more time doing administrative stuff. 🙂 I think every year it takes twice the amount of paperwork to do the same amount of work..reminds me of the old line about how the beauracracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing beauracracy…

Yep….I am in gov’t contract with DOD as an adviser to the border military units. The paper work is staggering. I am a field troop..not a desk jockey. I like the rain and the mud, blood, bombs, and bullets, snakes etc….going commando under the fatigues (that is for the gals)….but the paperwork takes me out of the field waaaaay too much….and even with the marvels of computers…that are submitted to us by the lowest bidders, working on out of date software with word….it is a challenge.

I heard this recently on conservative radio- I believe it was a C&W singer who was being interviewed concerning his support of the tea party movement, and he ended it by saying (this may not be verbatim, but it is close):

Matt has made the comment that in general, liberals are smarter than conservatives. I disagree and offer for consideration comments made by both liberals and conservatives. I invite all to compare the intelligence displayed by both groups and rate them. And while this does not who is smarter, I think it does show that the fringe right has a lot higher IQ than the fringe left.

From NEWSBUSTERS,

While America’s media continue to depict the Tea Party as homophobic, angry racists, they shamefully ignore the REAL hate speech going on in our nation, namely what’s being regularly hurled at this movement by its opponents.

Take for example the absolutely shocking voice-mail messages that have been left at the offices of FreedomWorks, a non-profit organization that has supported the Tea Party since its inception.

In response to a video that fired GEICO announcer Lance Baxter aka D.C. Douglas created last week that included messages he received from non-supporters after his termination, the folks at FreedomWorks on Monday published a collection of their own.

This video contains astonishingly vulgar and hateful voice-mail messages left for FreedomWorks employees that likely would be front-page and headline news if this was a liberal organization (video follows with commentary, STRONG vulgarity and content warning,

I think your comment answered the question. You made no remark about the article I posted, instead, you pointed out an honest mistake I made. Attack the messenger, ignore the message. Are you, by chance, an elected official?

Now Todd….Time, Newsweek, Mein Kamph….all about the same. You can fit their truth in a thimble.

The message is the important point. I am not a Tea Party member nor will I be but their message is clear and I have not seen any proof that the fringe elements that attend, both democrat and republican events alike are part of the group. They do tend to try to hijack it…but the American citizen is much smarter than that.

I do not claim to be an intellectual superior. I do state Matt’s previous generalization that most liberals are smarter than most conservatives is false. I offered for comparison two biased examples. Baxter made a one-sided hit piece to bash the Tea Party. FreedomWorks did the same.
Both have the same bias, but I think it strange how many F-bombs the liberals used does show their lack of intellect.

from Newsweek,

If Tea Party supporters are doing relatively fine, what are they so riled up about? These studies suggest that, at least in part, it’s race. The country that the Tea Partiers grew up in is irrevocably changing. Last month, new demographic data showed that minority births are on the verge of outpacing white births. By 2050, Hispanics are expected to account for more than a quarter of the American population. The Tea Partiers “feel a loss … like their status has been diminished,” says David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which examines issues of race. “If you listen to [their] language, it’s always about ‘taking our country back.’ But it’s really not taking the country back as is. It’s taking the country back”—as in time.

So the guy doing a study on racism thinks the Tea Party protesters want to take the country “back in time”. No, I don’t see any bias there, nor from Newsweek, that says “We’re all Socialists Now”.

Or maybe I do see just a little bias. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN & Newsweek have all reported how violent the Tea Party protest are, and how the immigration protests are “mostly peaceful”. I guess it’s hard to judge a “level” of violence, that there is no clear yardstick with which to measure. I wonder if, with all the Tea Party events and all there violence, the fact that there has not been a single arrest might be an indicator of “violence”.

LAURA INGRAHAM: And in the “Weekdays with Bernie” segment tonight, as we told you, thousands of people in Phoenix gathered over the weekend to protest a new state immigration law. The crowds got rowdy at times. Check out this video of protesters throwing plastic bottles at police, or this where a man with a camera was attacked by one of the protest organizers. The mainstream media largely ignored these incidents, a stark contrast to the big headlines made by largely peaceful Tea Party protesters. Joining us now from Miami, Fox News analyst Bernie Goldberg, author of the book A Slobbering Love Affair. And Bernie, why are we surprised when we have-

BERNIE GOLDBERG, FOX NEWS ANALYST: I’m not.

INGRAHAM: -some thugs out there in Phoenix over the weekend causing trouble? And we don’t know who is responsible, but there was thuggish behavior. Meanwhile, still hearing about the Tea Parties that were largely peaceful, of course.

GOLDBERG: I’m not surprised. If you understand one fairly obvious truth, everything else really fits right into place. And that is that, if the “lamestream” media basically sympathizes with your cause, they’re going to treat you one way. And if they don’t sympathize with your cause, they’re going to treat you another way. So if one idiot at a Tea Party rally throws a stink bomb at a cop, the story is going to be played basically as the guy throwing the stink bomb, there was an unruly crowd and all of that. But if you have the pictures that you just showed with people throwing bottles at cops and all of that, it’s going to be portrayed as a mainly, largely peaceful rally.

Speaking at the Economic Club of Washington, Orszag stated (video below the fold):

The only real solution to our long-term fiscal imbalance, because it’s driven disproportionately by the rate at which health care costs grow, is to move towards a health care system that is based on quality and efficiency, rather than quantity…
Everyone agrees that we can no longer afford to just pay for quantity. That is a fee for service system where doctors and hospitals are reimbursed based on volume. I think folks have not really focused on the Medicare commission, the Independent Payment Advisory Board that’s created. This institution could prove to be far more important to the future of our fiscal health than for example the Congressional Budget Office. It has an enormous amount of potential power…

So this Independent Payment Advisory Board has the power and the responsibility to put forward proposals to hit a pretty aggressive set of targets over the long term. And furthermore, the proposals take effect automatically, unless Congress not only specifically votes them down but the President signs that bill. So the default is now switched in a very important way on the biggest driver over long-term cost, which is the Medicare program…

Again, a lot will depend on whether it realizes its potential, and how the culture develops, but it has statutory power to put forward proposals to reduce health care cost growth overtime and improve quality, and those proposals take effect automatically if Congress ignores them, or if Congress votes them down and the President vetoes that bill. So in other words, inertia now plays to the side of this independent board.

“The proposals take effect automatically, unless Congress not only specifically votes them down but the President signs that bill.”

Sounds to me like they can propose treating cancer for anyone over
85 is not cost effective and that would BECOME policy, unless an Act of Congress were to override their proposal. An extreme example, but their is no limits on what they can propose.

I agree that there are some problems with the board and the fact that they have such free reign. However, I do caution that we don’t jump to the conclusions that it will mean death panels in our future. I simply haven’t found enough evidence to suggest that such a claim is true. Is it possible that this could be the outcome? Absolutely. There is no doubt in my mind what-so-ever that this advisory board could become a “death panel” if they choose to. But I struggle to believe that this would be the case. Do we have any evidence at all that the left in America has ever put forth the notion that rationing of health care in the form of a death panel is part of their plan for the future?

I really do understand the concerns over this, but I don’t think that we need to get upset about this at this point. Doing so puts us in the realm of jumping to extreme conclusions, which is something that we do not accept when the other side does so. For example, the Arizona debate has people claiming that it will result in the Nazi practice of asking for your papers. This is a ridiculous claim given that immigrants are ALREADY required to have their green card on them and present it when requested. A Nazi state in Arizona is an absolutely ridiculous extreme result that is possible, but not very likely. I submit that death panels are also possible, but highly unlikely.

I also submit that should death panels become real, the members of that panel that vote to deny me care for my terminal illness will not survive long enough to cast that same vote for the next patient. How long do you think those panels will be able to find staffing when they realize that terminal patients have nothing to lose by ending the lives of those who denied them the chance at saving their own?

Additionally, at the current rate of rising costs, will you be able to afford to spend the money for treatment of cancer at age 85? Even if you could, would you? I would rather take that 100k and give it to my grandchildren. I am dead soon no matter what. Are death panels really a threat to an 85 year cancer patient?

The term “Death Panels” is inflammatory propaganda. So is calling people Nazi’s for enforcing immigration laws.

“I don’t think that we need to get upset about this at this point.”

I do not agree. I think we need to get very upset, right now. A nameless, faceless bureaucracy is being given life and death power over us right now. This is when we should be upset about our loss of freedom, not after they have dictated what treatment we may receive. It is not about if they ever deny treatment to someone, it’s about every person’s right to choose if they want that treatment, and then if a doctor agrees to preform said treatment.

And furthermore, the proposals take effect automatically, unless Congress not only specifically votes them down but the President signs that bill. So the default is now switched in a very important way on the biggest driver over long-term cost, which is the Medicare program…

I believe this is basically the way every government agency operates – EPA, DOT, etc. Congress passes a law creating an agency with certain powers. Those powers can be adjusted in the future by a new law.

That is a fee for service system where doctors and hospitals are reimbursed based on volume.

In the current Medicare system, a doctor is paid so much for each “service”. If a patient is complaining about back pain, the doctor may order x-rays and a MRI. The doctor is paid for each of those services. If you’re referred to a specialist, the specialist may order new x-rays and MRI, because then he gets paid for those services too. Electronic medical records will also help, because all your records and test results will be available to each specialist.

The other thing that Peter Orszag is referring to is developing better treatment protocols and best practices that result in better outcomes for the patient at a lower cost. So instead of just doing a lot of tests to make extra money, doctors and hospitals that provide better care at lower costs will get better reimbursements.

Sounds to me like they can propose treating cancer for anyone over 85 is not cost effective and that would BECOME policy, unless an Act of Congress were to override their proposal. An extreme example, but their is no limits on what they can propose.

Yes, I suppose they could, but Congress and the Administration would get quite the backlash to correct this.

I also submit that should death panels become real, the members of that panel that vote to deny me care for my terminal illness will not survive long enough to cast that same vote for the next patient.

It’s also important to note that these types of Independent Payment Advisory Boards will not be making individual patient treatment decisions. They will be making broad policy decisions on how to best treat certain conditions. It will still be up to the doctor and patient on how to treat a certain condition depending on details of that case.

A nameless, faceless bureaucracy is being given life and death power over us right now.

This already happens – but it’s by HMO’s, employers, networks, and insurance companies.

On the whole, I can agree with your assessment. I think we differ on weather government will provide us with better services than private business. Ever had to deal with the DMV? You want a license, you put up with their mandates.

IRS has an issue with you, they can freeze you accounts before taking you to court. How about a comparison of UPS & USPS? LA wanted to expand their runway a few years ago, where their was a ditch/swamp. EPA required them to relocate shrimp living in that water at a cost of over $30 million. Could we have not just called Red Lobster to deal with the shrimp? Grilled, fried or garlic butter?

I know of a kid that was recently hurt, elbow dislocated, treated in the ER, told to see an Orthopaedic specialist.
ARKids First required them to see their
family doctor first. Mother had to take extra time off work, regular doctor, his staff lost their time reviewing what on doctor had reffered
to another doctor to treat. Maybe there are good reasons, but the parents were not allowed a choice, do this or we will not pay. Will automatic requirements of redundant medical consulting lower our health care costs?
Or will this solve our un-employment problems by requiring more and more paperwork, and therefore more government bureaucrats ?

“Welfare is a form of social insurance. In the private sector we freely accept the validity of life and property insurance. Obviously, the same validity goes for social insurance like unemployment and welfare. The tax money that goes to social insurance buys each one of us a private good: namely, the comfort of being protected in times of adversity. And it buys us a public good as well (although tax critics are loathe to admit this). If workers were allowed to unnecessarily starve or die in otherwise temporary setbacks, then our economy would be frequently disrupted. Social insurance allows workers to tide over the rough times, and this establishes a smooth-running economy that benefits us all.”

It seems the author never heard of saving for a rainy day, self sufficiency, personal responsibility, etc. The good news in this is that when the whole thing goes up in flames, people like the author and the believers of his drivel won’t be passing on their DNA. In the mean time, we can look forward to the Lib masses having less and less time for sticking their noses into everyone’s life because they’ll be struggling just to stay alive. How’s that for a silver lining? 😉

Social contract theory is not “discredited” nor was Hobbes the only proponent of it. He may have been the originator, but it has since had plenty of other followers, including the authors and signatories of the Constitution.

I studied him in college and was fortunate enough to have help and could break it down into chunks. Many great philosophers are poor writers. Some, like John Searle, are great writers and great minds (but have huge egos as a result).

I just noticed the first sentence above is a run-on. I hate it when I do stuff like that.

One other thing to keep in mind is that most philosophers are trying to be very specific about what they mean. This usually causes an overabundance of words. The course I took in philosophical writing had us answer complex questions with strict page limits (like three or four pages or 1,000 words) to force us to be as exact as possible while still being brief. My guess is that most of our professors never had to take such a course.

One of the enduring story lines of Barack Obama’s presidency, dating back to the earliest days of his candidacy, is that the press loves him……

….Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship — as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the past decade, reporters who cover the White House say

Yesterday on Prof. Rowley’s blog, he posted a very interesting sentence

“[Promoters of the Free Market]…had long abandoned … love of liberty, replacing it with … love of wealth as the highest ethical value of mankind….”

If there was one sentence that is descriptive of the current struggle, it is this one by Prof. Rowley.

The “Left” complain that those that want fiscal conservatism are really “money hungry” and unwilling to protect the disadvantaged even if it only costs a dime.

And with a core change in the philosophy of virtue as Prof. Rowley highlighted, they are exactly right.

The “Right” look upon the “Left” as economically illiterate. The “Righ” rally – not on arguments of freedom and liberty – but only on arguments of money! “You will bankrupt us!”, the “Right” cries to the “Left”. And they are right.

But both sides have forgotten that without liberty, we are bankrupt morally.

And Liberty stands defenseless as these two sides exchange of artillery lays waste to the home of the free.

I am not overly concerned about this. However, S&P is just a rating system but I am unaware of the purchase of any debt by the US in Spain…unless it is the purchase of Euros. My bank does not even offer Euros any longer.

Yes…understand the cost of debt to Spain and, actually, to anyone on the Euro….and more so if Greece is not bailed out and even if they are….Germany is going to get hammered, I think.

However, I see both short and long term gain for the USD. Don’t you think the ripple effect on the USD will be minimal…it is going to be in juxtaposition with the investment in the Euro….most that I talk to have abandoned the Euro some time ago.

Agree that our harbors are mined but I think that our occasional mine sweeping still has a hazardous but cleared pathway, for now.

Ok with the uncertainty…I agree there but I also don’t think Europe can rebound as quick…..wonder how much debt China holds in the euros….will have to research that…that is a sleeper in this case, I feel.

LONDON (AP) – World markets tumbled Wednesday amid acute fears that Greece’s debt crisis would spread like wildfire through Europe after a leading credit ratings agency downgraded the country’s debt to junk status and cut Portugal’s rating as well.

I don’t know if he paid his taxes or not. For all I know he got more than he paid for, but it’s probably a safe bet he didn’t get less.

When McD’s offers a “free coffee” to the seniors, I’m the one paying for that “free” when I buy a sandwich. (shrug)

If you think YOU are getting a deal out of your “tax”, then its “worth it” for you.

Don’t be looking into my wallet to judge your “worth”.

As far as Exxon and McDonald’s go, I’d say we’re back at the whole ‘externality’ issue. How much taxpayer money was spent cleaning up the Valdez mess

The argument here is:

Mathius made a boo-boo, so Chris demands Black Flag pay for it.
Huh?

If Exxon made the mess, Exxon pays to clean the mess. End of story.

or covering the living expenses for millions of underpaid workers on public assistance programs?

Why should I pay for someone elses lack of capability?

The fee for service model might work for gas and burgers, but isn’t exactly practical for public services.

It is completely practical!!

The power of the Free Market is its inherent intelligence on how get compensated. All sorts of schemes and mechanisms are developed – where do you think the “Credit Card” was invented…. in a government committee?

If the service is valuable, and a business wants to offer it, they will figure out how to get paid for it – guaranteed!

How much energy and revenues will be wasted trying to get all the deadbeats (rich and poor) to pay their bills?

This is NOT my worry.

This is the worry of the business owner.

It’s his problem and I’ll have no need to make it mine.

. How is this any different than Ticketmaster charging a non-negotiable transaction fee or ATM fees?

Because Ticketmaster has competition. I can buy my tickets directly, from “scalpers”, other people, or other services. Generally the same with banks and ATMs.

The moment government “allows” competition to its “services” then your comment may have merit.

But at this time under the current circumstance … it’s not applicable.

Ticketmaster does not (for the most part) have competition. On many occasions I have had to pay the TM service fee even when buying directly from the venue. They use just about every method to foil the scalpers (BTW when was the last time you saw a scalper charge face value?). For all intents Ticketmaster has a monopoly on ticket sales and charges a BS fee. How is this any different from your view of taxes? At least I get roads and fire departments from taxes. What value is added when I buy a concert ticket at the counter of the venue where it will be held?

BTW, why didn’t you quote my whole comment:

“On second thought, many taxes are levied after the fact (e.g., property taxes and the portion of income tax not withheld from your paycheck). Other taxes are paid at the point of sale (sales tax, excise tax, etc.). How is this any different than Ticketmaster charging a non-negotiable transaction fee or ATM fees?

Having thought this through a little more I’m even more convinced that most taxes are the dues we pay for services rendered.”

When was the last time you got a refund from the telephone company after they discovered you were overcharged? You think they’d do it if you didn’t ask for it? What about cable companies that charge you in advance and don’t actually charge you for how much TV you actually watched?

Face it, there are plenty of private sector analogs to government taxes. Your only argument is to say that you can’t cancel your fire department account or police protection contract. What if you could, how many people do you think would rather have private fire departments that let your house burn down when there is a billing discrepancy? How many people would opt out of the right to use the courts when wronged (strike that, binding arbitration is a common clause in credit card agreements).

The problem isn’t governments or business. The problem is people. People are mean and greedy, but people are also generous and kind. People are lazy and vindictive, but they are also industrious and forgiving. For me it all comes down to whether something is considered a human right or a product to be purchased. The former should be handled by democratically elected governments, the latter by private industry. We can debate about what things fall into which category, but to me it doesn’t make any sense to provide for human rights using a profit motive.

Now that I think about it the only place I didn’t have to pay the Ticketmaster surcharge when purchasing the ticket at the venue was at the Irish National Events Center for a Willie Nelson concert.

I’m not sure if you’ve heard, but Willie had plenty of tax problems. Did he refuse to pay up? No, he bit the bullet and paid his dues. He also does a lot of charity work (FarmAid) and tries to help free us from our dependence on foreign oil (BioWillie). Furthermore he is a big proponent of legalizing marijuana, thus pushing for freedom from government involvement in personal choices. He’s a shining example of someone who sees the need for government in addition to the need to keep it out of certain aspects of our lives. Once again, it’s all about balance. Go, Willie, go!

And don’t forget – the original venue also sells its own tickets for itself…

On many occasions I have had to pay the TM service fee even when buying directly from the venue.

No, actually you have just bought a ticket at a price.

If no matter where you buy a voluntary service and the cost is the same – that is the cost. What contractual arrangements regarding revenue sharing is not your business.

The reason any business may wish to advertise its cost sharing is its own choice.

They use just about every method to foil the scalpers (BTW when was the last time you saw a scalper charge face value?).

Rarely, if ever.

I either pay a premium or a huge discount.

That is their risk – and mine – and they provide a valuable service to everyone.

For all intents Ticketmaster has a monopoly on ticket sales and charges a BS fee.

First, monopolies can only exist by government grant or writ. Period.

Secondly, given their competition, they can hardly be called a “monopoly” – they may be “big” but that does not make it a monopoly.

Size merely means it is provisioning a service that, to a large degree, satisfies both its customers and its shareholders.

How is this any different from your view of taxes?

(1) Tickmaster requires no guns to gain revenue.

(2) I do not have to pay for a ticket to a concert I do not want to attend.

(3) There are other ways to provide and to receive service that have not been blocked by government.

At least I get roads and fire departments from taxes.

You’d get roads and fire departments without taxes, too. They existed before government took them over ya know!

What value is added when I buy a concert ticket at the counter of the venue where it will be held?

They provide the ability for the concert to actually go “work”.

Ticketmaster prepays a percentage of the tickets in advance.

This allows the venue to fund itself and mitigate financial risk – the venue can pay down payments, hire staff, etc. and defray some risk due to poor attendance. It is a form of pre-financing.

To cover losses and interest expenses, Ticketmaster applies a fee to the tickets.

The net result – you get a concert where you may not have had the privilege.

Why didn’t you quote the whole comment…

Because my response covers all such circumstances of taxation for service… (competition, etc.)

However, because I did transplant the conversation, I should have carried the whole conversation. I did not intend to “cut you off” – it was merely a matter of briefness.

When was the last time you got a refund from the telephone company after they discovered you were overcharged?

I’ve received credits for over-payment, or misapplied charges.

Further, how often have you returned to pay more for a good that a business may have undercharged to you?

You think they’d do it if you didn’t ask for it?

“They” have to me…. I don’t my experience is rare, either.

What about cable companies that charge you in advance and don’t actually charge you for how much TV you actually watched?

That’s their business model.

I don’t have cable because I calculated it cost me ~$5/hr for the amount I watched.

Face it, there are plenty of private sector analogs to government taxes.

Superficially.

The root of my rebuttal was the prevention of competition.

That hasn’t changed.

Your only argument is to say that you can’t cancel your fire department account or police protection contract.

That’s part of it.

It’s I can’t contract anyone else either.

What if you could, how many people do you think would rather have private fire departments that let your house burn down when there is a billing discrepancy?

Why do you think they would do this? I’ve lived in places where electricity/gas was wholly free market – and they continue to supply services long after the bill comes due. They work quite hard to get payment, negotiate terms, etc. while still delivering services.

Why do you believe others would act differently?

The choices people make for themselves are theirs to make and not mine.

My opinion on their choice is completely without merit unless they ask –
-and they haven’t.

How many people would opt out of the right to use the courts when wronged (strike that, binding arbitration is a common clause in credit card agreements).

Don’t use a credit card. Use cash instead. Or gold.

Again, I don’t determine the choices of others. Each have their own reasons -pro or con- to act or not. I (shrug).

The momeny, however, “you” believe you have a right to chose FOR ME, without my permission – then the problems start.

For me it all comes down to whether something is considered a human right or a product to be purchased. The former should be handled by democratically elected governments,

No matter how many or how few hands wave in the air

My Human Rights do not change.

No person, whether individual or as a group, has the Right to impose upon me.

the latter by private industry. We can debate about what things fall into which category, but to me it doesn’t make any sense to provide for human rights using a profit motive.

You pay off a barbarian, but you can’t buy freedom. However, you most certainly can sell it, and you can buy barbarians.

Profit in the market place is gained by solving other human’s problems better than the person themselves.

I’m not sure where you got that list of “competition” (WikiPedia?), but the first one is in Germany. A good portion of them are ticketing equipment services that have venues as clients and don’t sell tickets themselves. A few are scalpers or scalping enablers.

Long story short, there is only one that I could see that is even close to Ticketmaster in style or size: Tickets.com. I’ve bought tickets from them, but only when the venue contracted with them instead of Ticketmaster. The choice was not mine as to whom I could buy the tickets from once I decided upon a particular concert (excepting scalpers). Ticketmaster does not have any government mandate or subsidy that makes it the largest ticket seller, but it certainly uses that leverage to jack up the cost even when I buy the ticket from the venue. That’s what I was getting at above: why can’t the venue sell me the ticket at face value if the only thing that Ticketmaster has provided is a branded piece of paper? There is no value added for me. Perhaps the venue benefits from tickets that are easily verified as authentic, but I know where I bought the ticket (at the venue). I know it’s not a fake. Why should I have to pay a BS service fee for their convenience?

As far as I can tell there is no real competition in ticket sales. There are a few outfits that have divvied up the turf and run their rackets separately. That’s not competition (as evidenced by ever-increasing “convenience charges”). It’s not like one can offer an alternative product if the other has a lock on what I want to see. If I want to see Willie Nelson but don’t want to pay the surcharge the other guy can’t say, “we’ve got Wally Nelson and no extra fees.” I stick by my earlier statement that there is effectively no competition in ticket sales.

Regarding your point that electric/gas companies don’t shut off service immediately for non-payment, isn’t that because it’s illegal?

Its cheaper than rent. 🙂 I could afford rent, but I need more business tools, as does my fiance, so we decided that a mobile life in a conversion van (complete with propane heat, a stove, a fridge and a small bed) was a better choice in the short term than blowing money on 4-800 a month rent, when we need about 12,000 in equipment, software, etc. between us to get our businesses to the next level. Once the businesses are built up, then the income will folow, then we get a real place again. Its just a matter of priorities. Stay broke forever and have a house, or live poor and build a business so that we have whatever we want later. 🙂

I can understand that. I think its great that you and your fiance can work together for a common goal, even one that requries some real inconvenience. When I was 19-20, I lived in a car for several months and then a parked camper shell for a year, just because the idiot I was married to didn’t want to get a job. BIG difference. Good luck saving money and getting that business going. You deserve to have it work out well for you.

I am not a Vet, but I am married to one. My youngest son is a former Marine, now in the National Guard with his brother. I think it’s wrong, wrong, wrong. WHY? Because of what he said about those Marines killing those people in cold blood, and how they were under all the pressure and that’s why they did what they did. I think he lost a lot of respect from those in the military after that remark. And to think, he was a former Marine himself.

@BF : “European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet today confirmed to the Brussels parliament that emergency rules allowing lower-quality assets to be used as collateral for ECB loans will be extended to Jan. 2011 or beyond.

“[This is] to address any new stress situations…particularly for sovereign issuers in the Eurozone,” noted UniCredit Research, “with positive implications for Greek and periphery [member-state] bonds.”

D13 says: This will not work and cause the Euro further probs. Emergency rules such as these will lower the values and extend the Euro further out on worth. This is what I meant by the longer term for the USD.

Also, recently heard a talk that the GDP of the US will be 97% of debt but that will be among the lowest of developed Nations….most are predicted to be in the 102 or 105 range. I did not get the credentials of the person….but seemed knowledgeable.

I was hit by this type of virus last week. I was doing a lot of searches and had windows and tabs open all over the place. One of these “Virus Alerts” popped-up (it looked very official – like the Windows Firewall) and I just hit “OK”. It then tried to sell me the AV software. I didn’t buy it, but I think just hitting the “OK” installed the malware.

It’s not destructive, but a pain-in-the-butt. Virus warnings pop up constantly (both fake and real!), when you click on links (especially in Google searches), it redirects you to websites that contain the virus to re-infect or multi-infect your computer, and it chews up memory so your computer runs really slow.

It took several days of running REAL Anti-virus software and some special programs from MS to get rid of everything…but I still have browser windows open unexpectedly, so I know it’s not completely gone…

Do you think Arizona will really mind if SF residents do not visit? What a great side effect of their law!

City workers banned from official travel to Arizona

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today a moratorium on official city travel to Arizona after the state enacted a controversial new immigration law that directs local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally.

The ban on city employee travel to Arizona takes effect immediately, although there are some exceptions, including for law enforcement officials investigating a crime, officials said. It’s unclear how many planned trips by city workers will be curtailed.

In the wake of the passage of a controversial immigration law in Arizona, there have been calls for a boycott of the state and its businesses. Among those calling for a boycott are Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.), lawmakers in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and La Opinion, the nation’s biggest Spanish-language newspaper.

Some of the boycott calls are directed not just at the state but businesses based there, among them Cold Stone Creamery, Circle K and U-Haul. And as the New York Daily News reports, also under fire in some quarters is Arizona Iced Tea. Its label says is brewed by the Arizona Beverage Co.

“Dear Arizona: If you don’t change your immigration policy, I will have to stop drinking your enjoyable brand of iced tea,” one person wrote on Twitter, according to the Daily News; another called Arizona Iced Tea “the drink of fascists.”

There is (at least) one problem with all that, however: Arizona Iced Tea is based in New York. It was founded in 1992 in Brooklyn by former New York City beer distributors; the company says the founders borrowed “the motif from their south-western inspired house in Queens.”

“For the last 16 years our headquarters have remained on Long Island where we continue to sell and distribute AriZona Iced Teas and beverages,” the company said in a statement to correct what it called “misinformation” about its origins.

Arizona’s new law, which was signed Friday and would take effect in July, would require immigrants to carry documents verifying their immigration status. It would also require police officers to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that person may be illegally in the country.

Both the media and the left know how they want to play this – don’t go for the jugular, go for the wallet.

The old media love a great race – so much that they’d rather double their pleasure by injecting racial politics into the 2010 congressional elections. They weren’t content with claiming conservatives were anti-black racists who wanted to restart the Civil War. Now the left and the media that support it are claiming that conservatives are anti-Hispanic racists who have re-launched the Mexican War as well.

That latest bogus claim follows the passage of a law in Arizona that essentially authorizes state law enforcement agencies to enforce federal statutes on immigration. Liberals are going ballistic over the law. That’s unsurprising, given 2010 is an election year and Democrats are doing poorly at the box office.

The media and others on the left have become so entangled on the issue that it’s almost impossible to sort out exactly who is leading the charge to halt the law, beat up on Arizona and welcome the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants into our nation’s arms and pocketbook.

Once the law was signed by Arizona’s governor those even-handed, professionally neutral journalists acted like they had joined La Raza. CBS “Early Show” co-host Harry Smith claimed to know the heart of every Hispanic in Arizona, asking Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): “And for the millions of Hispanic Americans who live in Arizona, what do you say to them, who feel like this bill is purely discriminatory?”

One-time New York Times Supreme Court reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner Linda Greenhouse called Arizona a “police state” and said she would avoid it till the law changed. She compared the law to “the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa.”

Official left-wing voices were just as shrill. Jesse Jackson, the man who once called New York City “Hymietown,” called the law equal to “terrorism for the innocent … you look suspicious because you are Mexican.”

Far-left CNN Headline News host Joy Behar invoked images of World War II Germany. “Do you think it’s kind of — doesn’t it feel like sort of Nazism a little bit?” she asked.

Both the media and the left know how they want to play this – don’t go for the jugular, go for the wallet. They plan to promote a boycott of Arizona to make the state cave on the law they’ve approved for daring to say that people who are here illegally shouldn’t be.

The left’s Nation magazine embraced a boycott with echoes of the Martin Luther King Day boycott of the early 1990s. Sports correspondent Dave Zirin led off his call with innocent-sounding lines from a Public Enemy song from that era called “By the Time I Get to Arizona.”

Zirin called the new law “echoes of apartheid” and added: “This will be the last column I write about the Arizona Diamondbacks in the foreseeable future. For me, they do not exist.” He forgot to mention the Public Enemy song had a video with a whole story line of political assassination of whites who opposed the King holiday. In the video one politician is poisoned and another is blown up while members of the band appear repeatedly carrying rifles and wearing paramilitary garb.

Imagine if the band had been white and the targets had been Hispanic. Now that would have been noteworthy.

CBS’s John Blackstone, estimated that previous boycott cost the state “170 conventions and $300 million.” That is what liberals plan for Arizona this time, too.

On ABC, Barbara Pinto said “the call for an economic boycott here has caught fire on the Internet.” Both ABC and NBC announced the scary news that all 400 planned guests for the American Immigration Lawyers Association had canceled.

Of course, Democrats are pushing the idea to get supporters to the polls. Luis Gutierrez, (D-Ill.), called for people to cancel summer vacations in Arizona. San Francisco Democrats voted to boycott the state.

Even Mexico got into the act as that nation issued a travel warning urging Mexicans to “act carefully” in Arizona. Presumably they will print it in Spanish and leave it at every desert water station so illegals are sure to see it during their daily invasion.

As the boycott builds, and journalists will make sure it does, you can bet we’ll hear repeated reminders of how Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to illegals. Yes, using all the information available at the time, Reagan did so. It was a horrific mistake. Instead of solving a problem, it guaranteed an endless cycle of amnesty and illegal border crossing.

What the media and left don’t want to discuss is the fact that a failure of government – that same government that now controls our health care – is what led Arizona to this desperate measure. The craven cowards of both parties — grasping for every vote — have refused to secure our border. There must be no amnesty until Americans are satisfied our border is under control.

America remains a nation that loves immigrants. But we hate law-breakers and the politicians and journalists who cater to them. The last amnesty bid failed because Democrats and Republicans joined together to defeat it. If Team Obama wants to use the Arizona law to insert race into the 2010 elections, we can only hope that American voters will ensure it’s a race they lose.

I’ve known how to do it for a while now. The problem is money. I don’t have enough to buy my way into another citizenship, and my skill set is pretty specialized so it won’t be easy to get a job, muchless from overseas. Not many countries need it, those that do require citizens to work it, just like the US. Do you know where I can find a list of any American companies that are not on government contract that are in other countries?

When he wasn’t busy helping create a $127 billion mess for taxpayers to clean up, former Fannie Mae Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines, two of his top underlings and select individuals in the “green” movement were inventing a patented system to trade residential carbon credits.

Patent No. 6904336 was approved by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on Nov. 7, 2006 — the day after Democrats took control of Congress. Former Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., criticized the award at the time, pointing out that it had “nothing to do with Fannie Mae’s charter, nothing to do with making mortgages more affordable.”

It wasn’t about mortgages. It was about greenbacks. The patent, which Fannie Mae confirmed it still owns with Cantor Fitzgerald subsidiary CO2e.com, gives the mortgage giant a lock on the fledgling carbon trading market, thus also giving it a major financial stake in the success of cap-and-trade legislation.

The agency has long been a money exchange for the Democratic Party and its former head Franklin Raines seems to have profited the most in his short time there despite its role in the housing and banking crash and the funny money accounting on his watch.

Even after the recent Super Bowl victory of the New Orleans Saints, I have noticed a large number of people implying with bad jokes that Cajuns aren’t smart. I would like to state for the record that I disagree with that assessment. Anybody that would build a city 10′ below sea level in a hurricane zone and fill it with Democrats is a damn genius.

@ USW: ” I just hope that I can remain in as good a shape as the good Colonel has managed….”

D13 says: USW…..my 22 year old mind still writes checks my 61 year old body can’t always cash. I hurt most of the time but manage to still run my APFT (SF), although I have slowed a step or two unless I am shot at….then I manage to speed up significantly. Hope your back feels better. Can still crack 44 crunches in 2 mins and 51 pushups in 2 mins….run two 8 minute miles everyday or most days….but the pain will still be there. Sorry, bro.

Funny thing about pain, if you pay attention to it, it’s alweays there. If you ignore it, it’s still there, but you don’t really know it. Mind over matter Colonel, I don’t mind and it don’t matter, LOL 😆

Yea I know it isn’t going away. I can still throw out 80 legit situps in two minutes and I can still get 60 push-ups out there (I am only getting ready to turn 40 after all). I used to run the 2 mile in 10:20. I would probably barely pass the 16:36 required for 17 year olds these days though. I am still in good shape. But man there are days when my back and other days when my knee give me all kinds of trouble. I can deal with it though. I sure hope I can do what you do when I reach 61. These days it feels like I will be lucky to still be walkin!

Yes sir…the stuff we put our frame through when in our 20’s. I made 84 jumps in military style chutes…most of them with a t80 in the 70’s….you know the ones…designed to get you on the ground quickly but not “set” you down….impact of jumping off a 10 ft wall….into trees, fences, mud, water, dry ground, dragged across fields and cactus (and mesquite thorns) when the winds are high before the quick release works….that leaves a mark or two.

The incessant running everyday in combat boots until they changed to tennis shoes…rapelling from helicopters and not judging the TNSL strength of the nylon rope just right…turning what should have been a soft landing into an abysmal slam dunk into mother earth…then laying there waiting for the pain to subside until you find out you can walk again with no broken bones…. running the night compass course before the invention of night vision devices….then walking off in the ravine 12 ft deep and you hit the only area that has rocks….

Little things like that….ahhhhhhhhh…………….I would do it all again. 🙂

Have a great day…hot baths and Ibuprofen. Strong Marguerita at the end of the day…..helps.

And let’s not forget the 100 pound rucks that moved over our heads only to rest on our shoulders for the next 20 miles. The “Darby Queen”= a series of “retirement pain” obstacles. Learning military hand to hand techniques with a partner that doesn’t quite have it yet (I think I got hurt more learning the techniques than using them, lol).

As for your examples, those chutes were nasty, and the mere fact that we had to spend time learning a proper PLF makes me cringe. I remember them saying it was the equivalent of hitting the ground at 60mph. Night land nav was horrible as well. I did them without any sort of NVG. The worst was that you were sometimes doing them on a clock that you couldn’t see, so you were always going top speed, and don’t you DARE talk to another on the course!

I agree 100%. I would do it all again. I can live with the small pains I have, but I would not be the person I am were it not for what I did in the military.

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. That’s too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve
our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

in the country legally;
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records; and
contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens — and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or
General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country’s immigration policy.

It is an interesting law — and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a
crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
“A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices versus its American
immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government’s agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let’s call Mexico’s bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let’s propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico’s own law as a model.

DETROIT (AP) – A federal judge challenged prosecutors Wednesday to show that nine members of a Michigan militia accused of plotting war against the government had done more than just talk and should remain locked up.

U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts heard nearly 10 hours of testimony and arguments over two days. She did not make a decision about whether the nine will remain in custody, saying only that a ruling would come soon.

The members of a southern Michigan group called Hutaree have been in custody for a month. An indictment accuses them of weapons violations and a rare crime: conspiring to commit sedition, or rebellion, against the government by first killing police officers.

Prosecutors say the public would be at risk if the nine are released. But defense lawyers claim the government has overreached with a criminal case based mostly on hateful speech.

An undercover agent infiltrated the group and secretly made recordings that have been played in court. While there is talk about killing police, it’s not specific. In one conversation, there are many people talking over each other and laughing.

Roberts pressed that point more than once as Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Waterstreet argued in favor of keeping the nine in jail. The judge suggested she didn’t hear or read in the transcripts any indication that violence was imminent.

“Mere presence where a crime may be planned is not a crime. … How does this add up to seditious conspiracy?” Roberts said.

Waterstreet said the government is not required to show all its evidence at this early stage of the case. He referred to the words of militia leader David Stone, 44, of Clayton, Mich., who was recorded by the undercover agent while they drove to Kentucky earlier this year.

“It’s now time to strike and take our nation back so that we may be free again from tyranny. Time is up,” Waterstreet said, quoting a transcript.

Later, putting the transcript aside, the prosecutor said: “The theme is the brotherhood is the enemy – all law enforcement.”

Defense lawyers urged the judge to look at each defendant individually. Although all are charged with conspiracy, they were not always together during critical meetings cited by the government.

“‘What if’ is not the standard. … None of these words are an instruction to anyone to commit a crime,” said Stone’s attorney, William Swor, as held up a stack of transcripts.

Arthur Weiss, a lawyer for Thomas Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Ind., said disgust with the government as recorded by the undercover agent is similar to what’s said daily by radio and TV talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

“Millions of people” are talking about “taking our country back,” Weiss said.

The judge also heard from relatives of some of the defendants who pledged to be responsible for them if they were released from jail. ”

Don’t know any more than you do Kathy. Our local news is nothing to learn from unless you want info on Kwame Kilpatrick.

I do know just from personal acquaintances that militias are pretty big around here. Wonder if that has anything to do with Mich being true blue at the ballot box.
Friends in the thumb say that they will protect the thumb come hell or high water and if the SHTF aint no one..no one.. getting into the thumb.

How stupid is that…if you can catch them to implant a microchip, you can catch them to deport them.

The biggest issue with the whole deal is that the Federal Government refuses to do anything to stem the flow of illegals crossing the border. If they would actually do something positive in that respect, then states would not be forced to pass state laws to enforce federal laws…

(Here’s a hint: human beings should not be treated like animals and tagged. Here, for the first time ever, is a Holocaust comparison from me. What is the difference between forcibly tattooing a number on someone’s arm and forcibly inserting a chip into their body to give them readable serial number?)

So let me get this straight-it’s okay if you abuse a person and force them to comply to something being done to their body if you aren’t discriminating in your selection process?

As far as lasting effects-giving blood can have lasting affects-ask the people who were given aids through needles. As far as relying on arbitrary reasons-your kidding right-The definition of arbitrary might as well be Opinion-which you seem to freely use.

The people who received AIDS were the victim of an ACCIDENT. Giving blood, if properly done has no lasting effects, and I would suggest that anyone who is physically incapable or for whom it would be dangerous would be exempt.

I admit that I use opinion where I am unable to quantify. I have no better way. This does not mean your way is correct.

Mat t,
The Jewish people being branded was wrong and horrible but it wasn’t because they were the only ones being branded –it was the branding and the reasons behind the branding that was wrong-if the whole population had been branded-they could have still picked out the Jews as Jews just by keeping track of the numbers they used-all they needed to do to make this branding politically correct to some in the population was to brand everyone for some greater good reason and then use it to identify and hurt whatever segment of society that they wanted.

Yes, if only the Jews had all voluntarily left when Hitler came to power, there would be no cause to round them up and brand them.

Let me say this very simply: This. Is. Their. Home.

They live here. They work here. They have friends here. They have family here. How they got here is irrelevant. Are they committing crimes? If so, prosecute them for that. But otherwise they’re productive members of society doing jobs other Americans don’t want to do. Or is there something about them as a person that means that they forfeit their right to be treated equally and that you can electronically brand them and track them like wild animals?

They can’t afford to leave and come back. Hell, you probably can’t afford to leave and come back.

Tell me that a gardener is able to leave his home and job, then wait months while the US processes his application? I’m sure he’s sitting on several thousand dollars to pay the rent and feed his family while he has no income.

They’re here. This is their home. And they don’t need your permission any more than you need your neighbors’ permission to move into a new neighborhood.

Imagine if you moved somewhere without getting the blessing of your new neighbors and they said: you can move in, but first you have to leave for six months while we consider your application to move here. You’d laugh in their faces. And even if you wanted to comply, you wouldn’t be able to.

You’re right. The illigals KNEW what they were doing at the time they did it. They shouldn’t be the least bit surpirsed if they are asked to leave and do it legally. In fact, it happened to me when I moved to England in the late 90’s. I actually had to travel from London, to my choice of city in the USA, go to the UK Consulate, apply for and receive my visa, return to London and then reapply for entry. I did this without making wild accusations of Nazis, racists, haters, etc. I just went to Los Angeles, saw my family, got my damn visa, returned to London with my then husband, and was issued my ‘papers’ which I had to produce on demand, like when I went to apply for a job and my NHI card so I could get their crappy ‘free’ health care.

The rest of world has reasonable immigration laws and enforces them. Why do we have to be different from them when the Left DEMANDS that we do everything like ‘the rest of the civilized’ world?

The point in my mind is that we need to look at the people who are already here and come up with some kind of way to treat them compassionately, to decide who gets to stay and who doesn’t-we are the country of “Give me your tired and your weary” but first we need to close the border where no one else can just walk into this country-they should come the legal way and if they can’t then they simply can’t come. If the government refuses to enforce the law and allows this chaotic and deadly crap to continue at the border than the government is exacerbating the problem.

When they violate our laws to get here, it is indeed relevent how they got here. If you or I attempted the same action in THEIR country of origin, then the best we could hope for would be deportation. I never advocated their “branding”, simply that they comply with the laws of the country they wish to inhabit.

When the “grater good” argument fits your wishes, you are all for it, but when it does not…

ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.

It is pretty evil to carve out a race of people to be targeted and harassed and treated as sub-humans.

I was reading about a legal citizen employed as a truck driver who was arrested under this law and jailed on suspicion of being illegal despite providing his drivers license and Social Security Number. The cop demanded he produce his birth certificate*. As if anyone carries their birth certificate around with them. When he couldn’t, he was handcuffed and taken to the police station for processing.

The ONLY way to enforce this law would be to engage in racial profiling.

Tell me how this does not carve out a race of people to be targeted. Sure the terms of the law apply to all illegal immigrants of all races, but let’s at least be honest with each other as to who this law is aimed at.

It’s aimed at illegal immigrants-the fact that most illegals in Arizona are Mexican is just happenstance of location. Any laws that give the police permission to question or search that are based on “reasonable” can be abused-should they all be considered wrong. If you are stopped by a policeman should he not be able to check your record to see if you have a warrant out for your arrest because he might abuse the privilage.

But the Kenyan Prince that sold it to me said it would be good enough to let me run for office in the U.S.–and he was kind enough to refer me to another Prince in Zimbabwe that was in need of someone to help him get inheritance away from the government–I am still waiting on my first check, but he said I’d be rich…. 🙂

I just heard about this as well. My first instinct is to say they should be able to. Currently, they have taxation without representation. With the way things are headed tho, I am not sure they should become a state for their own sake, unless they are hoping that it salvages what few rights they may have.

The issue is that they have voted overwhelmingly in the past not to become a state. The Progressives in Puerto Rico have it in their mind that they should become a state. This legislation pretty much has them vote on statehood once every 8 years.

In the past, they were simply asked “Do you want Puerto Rico to become a state?”, now the question that is being posed is “do you want to stay the same as you are now”. If no, then they would have the option of about three choices…totally disconnect fromt he US, become a state, or maintain the status quo…

Haven’t read the bill but from this theory on what this means, the bill does sound like its purpose is meant to mislead since they already have and will definitely vote in the future on their own accord.

HR 2499 — if it passes — would force a yes or no vote in Puerto Rico on whether Puerto Rico should maintain the “current status” of the island. Wait, that’s not a vote on statehood. That’s a vote on do you want to “maintain the status quo.”
Let me ask you this: Do you want to maintain the status quo of America? ACORN’s Bertha Lewis would agree with me and say no, I don’t want our current direction. But we would disagree on the reasons why.
See the trick?
In the past, statehood fails because some people like the status quo, some want to be a state and some want to be independent. There are too many choices, too many options. They need to unite people. Do you want to maintain the status quo unites them, not on the answer but on the question.
See, the folks that like the status quo are more likely to vote for statehood than independence.
In 1998, there were five options on the ballot: Limited self-government; free association; statehood; sovereignty and none of the above. Which one won? None of the above.
But now, the vote is going to happen in two stages. The first stage: Do you want to maintain the status quo? Then a chair is removed. The second vote leaves you with three choices: statehood; full independence or modified commonwealth.
Remember, full independence and modified commonwealth historically get less than 3 percent of the vote. So those options will be the only thing standing in the way of Puerto Rico becoming a state.

I find the article on fox news on this Puerto Rico statehood quite funny because yesterday I actually stumbled upon the legalities of Puerto Rico and other territories of the United States in regards to this issue on Wikipedia.

My main question is, if they already have done this on Puerto Rico, what’s the purpose of passing this bill and voting every 8 years when in the fox news article it says “Puerto Rico doesn’t need congressional authorization to hold such a nonbinding vote” and they have clearly done it in the past.

This is just more partisan rhetoric, one side will say that you are denying the Puerto Ricans the right to determine what they want, and the other side will say that this is a waste of time.

When you die, you have no rights. You are a sack of meat. Your heirs get your organs.

You didn’t give a link, but I would assume the law is for people who didn’t specify and whose heirs cannot be located in a timely fashion.

Given that, I suggest that their body becomes property of the hospital every bit as much as if you had dropped a dollar bill on the floor and left. The hospital, then, is free to do with it as it wishes.

Puritan states that his body belongs to his heirs. This is correct. Just like the rest of your property, it can be bequeathed.

You are wrong that it is yours to decide about even after you are dead. The dead have no rights. Whoever has ownership of your body decides.

Consider, you die and your heirs have you body. Your stated wish is to have a standard burial. They decide to put a stake in your heart just to be safe. Your body is their property, so they are perfectly within their rights to do so.

If I give you a money and tell you that I want you to spend it on food. You are still within your rights to spend it on grog. It is no longer my money to control.

Only the living have rights. Once dead, you have no rights. Your heirs own your body. Did you get anything from your grandparents when(if) they died? Do you consider that they still own it or is it yours now? What is the difference?

I die, I bequeath my collection of antique nativity-scene snow globes to my family. They own the snow globes, not me. They can do whatever they like with them – including destroying them against my expressed wishes. True or false?

So why do you feel that you have a right to determine what happens to your body once it is no longer yours?

For a thought experiment though, consider this. A pirate ship is passed down from your great-great grandfather, to your great grandfather, to your grandfather, to you. If the dead still own what was theirs then the pirate ship has four owners. Can four people have an absolute claim to a single item?

No. That’s entirely the point. Your heir is free to do what he wants. If you want to be buried, your heir does not have to honor that. Likewise, if the state becomes your heir, it can do what it likes regardless of your expressed wishes.

The proposed law has an ‘opt out’ provision — all it does is seek to change the default rule to be donation as opposed to the current default (no donation). If you do not wish to donate, all you have to do is check the ‘I do not wish to donate’ box.

As to ownership, you’re both right and your both wrong — the owner is your Estate. Not you (as you are dead) and not your Heirs. However, Mathius is right in that your Estate will be ultimately distributed to your heirs.

Most often, what a innovator thought was “better” is actually a flop. “New Coke” pops into mind.

Sometimes better means efficiency through process improvement or economies of scale. Other times it means substituting inferior quality goods in the hopes that nobody notices.

Efficiency is over rated. Effectiveness is usually more accurate measure.

100% efficiency where there is no effect has…no effect.

Yes, offering inferior (what measure?) is a good idea. If a ‘superior’ part has no value to the consumer, it has no value! So why waste money provisioning it when the consumer does not see any value for it?

If it DID have value, the consumer will notice it pretty quick – and then decide.

Managing the perceptions of consumers has become more important than actually giving them what they asked for (or what was advertised) in many cases.

The old “idiot consumer” theory.

I do not adhere to this theory at all.

It is, instead, what I said above. That what the consumer really wanted is being provided – the rest of the fluff is ultimately just “fluff”.

it is not cool to shrink the size of a coffee can while charging the same price as last year.

Why not?

If the unit cost is going up – but you do not want to disturb consumer cash flow, it is a brilliant way to handle the problem.

The alternative – increasing the price – may cause consumers to forgo the purchase all together.

Now, the consumer still gets their coffee economically – within their cash flow -while the supplier can offset his higher costs as well.

The grocery store shelves are full of plenty of such examples. Does it make the companies more profitable? Perhaps. But without consumer watchdog groups or OCD label readers this mostly goes unnoticed. Is this “better”?

Not my call. It is the consumer’s call.

I believe consumer watchdogs are great. They are far more responsible than any government agency in maintaining market awareness.

The other thing about profit is that it is only one of many motivations for human action. Empathy, concern, and other philanthropic notions are just as powerful but actively discouraged by free-market prophets.

Nonsense!

Free market “prophets” do not judge the motives of human action.

If a person DOES judge, they are NOT a free market prophet! They are a INTERVENTIONIST and probably a STATIST – someone who believes they know more about someone else that the person themselves…..

Free market system simply says the voluntary choices of all parties is respected in trade. It says NOTHING about the motives of their desire to trade.

Cooperation is just as much a source of efficiency as competition (I would even argue that it is more so).

I would agree.

VOLUNTARY cooperation is powerful and a core reason to the success of civilization.

Competition does not ENCOURAGE deceit. Indeed, the opposite – consumers, being human, rarely support liars as suppliers.

Supporting liars is reserved for their politics.

No form of motivation is perfect and there is a time and a place for them all, but arguing that the profit motive or competition are the only ways to achieve every goal seems awfully naive.

I do not.

I corrected yours and Buck’s notion of “profit” and its meaning.

Competition is a law of the Universe and it is healthy.

Cooperation is a incredibly powerful tool for all species, from ants to humans. It is most powerful in humans, when it is VOLUNTARY.

The Free Market System exists solely as a voluntary system. Thus, it is mankind’s most powerful tool of human action. Any external political will applied to the Free Market degrades the tool and inhibits human power.

Really? Then how do you explain why the largest private employer in America and the largest retailer in the world succeeds despite continually lying to its customers and employees? The consumer has been trained to look at the price tag and ignore most other concerns. While I won’t excuse consumers from any blame, I reserve most of my scorn for the businesses who started this race to the bottom in the first place.

Furthermore, competition most certainly encourages businesses to lie about their illegal business practices. Before you say that’s a problem with government intervention, do you really want to suggest that there be no laws governing commerce? Industrial espionage is a form of deceit as is false advertising. Competition is the source of such problems.

BTW, you should have seen that I was using efficiency in the sense of cost reduction. A reduction in costs is an effective means of improving profits.

Then how do you explain why the largest private employer in America and the largest retailer in the world succeeds despite continually lying to its customers and employees? The consumer has been trained to look at the price tag and ignore most other concerns.

“Trained”? You don’t like consumers, do you?

If a consumer ignores some “concern” it is usually because they are not concerned!

Walmart caters to those that are price sensitive. If you do not like that market, you can buy at Tiffany’s if you like.

Furthermore, competition most certainly encourages businesses to lie about their illegal business practices. Before you say that’s a problem with government intervention, do you really want to suggest that there be no laws governing commerce?

Absolutely NO LAW is Rightful if it imposes upon the peace of free men. Period.

Thus, there exists no Right to make a law to govern the voluntary actions of men and their trade of goods.

Rightful Law against violence covers all society including the Free Market.

Industrial espionage is a form of deceit as is false advertising. Competition is the source of such problems.

Industrial espionage maybe immoral but this is not in the realm of law whatsoever, unless theft of real property or violence exists.

False advertising, again maybe immoral but first you must demonstrate actual harm before you can enforce by Rightful Law.

Competition is a source of many things – including problems – but so is everything else.

Preventing competition is a problem too.

BTW, you should have seen that I was using efficiency in the sense of cost reduction. A reduction in costs is an effective means of improving profits.

Over what term?

I can cut 100% of my workforce and eliminate a significant cost. For about 30 days, I’m going to make a fantastic “profit”.

Some general observations and questions for everyone to digest, and respond too.

– Since there are laws on the books that do not allow illegals to work, or allow employers to hire illegals for work, WHY ARE WE DEBATING THE SUBJECT? Most of us would not welcome a flood of people the size of those coming from Mexico from China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Somolia, etc, etc, so why must we endure it from Mexico. Is it because they are a border country?

– Why is America expected to stray from the norm when every other country in the world gets to set and live by it’s own standards?

– Why do a great majority of people (especially those under the age of 35) expect the government to intercede in things like the economy, failing businesses, ecology, poor people, other countries, obesity and education, but at the same time want the government to stay out of drug enforcment, freedom of speach, clothing standards, music, pronography, etc, etc?

– Why do some people believe Health Care is a right, but owning firearms is not?

– Why do some people believe that those with more money should pay more to help those with less?

– Why do some people who reside in the West Coast and/or Northeast believe they are more in tune with critical social issues than those that live in the South, West or Midwest?

– Why do some people believe that putting different people in elected positions is going to suddenly fix a government that has been FUBAR’ed since the late 1920’s, especially since those elected and those running for election have been part of the FUBAR’ed government for the majority of their adult life?

– Why do we trust a Media that for the last 75 years has been reporting everything from a bias perspective, or just not reporting it all?

– Why do we believe that voting in a Democracy will change anything?

– Why do we allow those we elected to represent us, mis-represent us?

– Why do we care if students want to form prayer clubs, gun clubs, hunting clubs, glee clubs, history clubs, or any other club that doesn’t pomote violence?

– Why do we ignore the needs of our veterans returning from Hell, but allow individuals like Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Reed, obama, etc, etc, etc get away with treason?

– Why do we allow those we elected to belittle us when we object to their ideals and policies?

Just some points and issues to think about, if for no other reason than to look at current issues and events from a different paradigm.

Cyndi,
given your penchant for cliches and insults that are clearly not of your creation, it seems that you are the likeliest candidate in this discussion to have been indoctrinated (albeit by Fox News).

I love it when I’m told I’m indocrinated by Fox News. I live on a lump of coral in the Pacific with a grand total of 6 channels! Yes that right kiddies, I said 6! There is ONE news channel that is shared with all the other major news shows. That’s right, ONE. Fox is one broadcast that comes on during the day when I’m working my 9 hour shift. Now, tell me about YOUR viewing choices. ROTFLMAO.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, Fox is telling the truth? Its available in other places and I can find it. You guys crack me up.

PS I’ve been here for three years, before your president declared his war on Fox…..

I don’t really watch TV, except for cooking shows and science documentaries. I get most of my news from reading across a broad spectrum of websites from all types of media. I like to hear a few takes on any topic before I formulate an opinion.

…and I hate cliches. If you’re not witty enough to think of your own material then don’t try to be witty. Just be honest and open-minded.

Fox could very well be telling the truth, but I can’t stand demagogues with chalkboards and bullies who like to cut the mike of someone who won’t play ball. I’m also more than a little suspicious of Rupert Murdoch (as well as Ted Turner and all the other media moguls). As far as I can tell they don’t care about presenting the truth. All they want is an audience they can sell to their advertisers. In the television game you are the product, not the customer. If Hearst was still around I’d be complaining about him too.

Also, I’ve had issues with Fox for much longer than I’ve even known about Obama. Why do you keep assuming that I take my cues from him?

I don’t need a course in ‘logic’. I have plenty of common sense and almost 50 years of experience, not mention a degree in electronics (AS) and another in management {BA}(so don’t try to use fancy words to demonstrate how smart and educated you are, you’re not dealing with a brain donor in this case).

I can see where you would behave in a manner that is convinient for you and behave in a fair weather fashion. However, since politicians make the laws we have to live with (all countries have laws that are enforced, btw), it is more logical to consider the big picture and its overall effect on your life, rather than just trying to score points and claim the moral high ground when you can.

You most certainly need a course in logic if you can’t see the fallacious reasoning in your statements. All those Boolean truth tables you learned in electronics will help. The fact that you call accepted terminology “fancy words” shows a disdain for education on your part. Education doesn’t end with school. That’s where it begins.

I don’t support politicians to score points and I am no fair weather citizen. I am someone who takes an active role in the democratic process and one who lets my representatives know when I am happy or displeased with their actions.

I’ve had it with your insults. Damn near every one of your posts to me in the last few days has included an insult. I can see that you consider anyone who disagrees with you as stupid and uneducated. Fine. I got it. So here’s a sentence for you in a language you can understand: You’re a fine example of someone who’s been educationed beyond their intelligence. and, a hearty WHATEVER to you.

Cyndi,
You get very upset when someone insults you, but you routinely insult those on the left who do not agree with you.

You get upset when someone infers to your lack of intelligence, yet you have no problem making the assumption that anyone who does not share your world viewust be “indoctrinated” and have no mind of their own.

All I ask is that you take a step back, realize that there are other equally valid opinions and worldviews out there. Try to understand our thought process and debate us on the points. Don’t dismiss us as being unable to form our own opinions as you yourself resort to talking points.

I’ve learned long ago that men think from the head (which one is debatable) and women think from the heart. It’s important to understand this in life, as you will find out personnally someday. Emotions are far more powerful with our female folks, and far less important to the vets. Everyone else is in the middle 😆

True, that is the point of debate, to discover the basis for differences and try to determine which parts are right or not.

I am sure there is indoctrination on all sides. There is also the tendency of people to listen to what they already agree with, and to filter information based on their pre-conceived ideas. The same piece of news may mean different things to different people. This is normal. If, however, one is closed to the potential that they are misinterpreting things or that they may have been misinformed, then the mind is closed and debate is irrelevant and useless.

You don’t seem to hear yourself at times. People on both sides often resort to their ‘talking points’. I am occassionally guilty of that as are you. Its important to take a step back and actually think about and analyze what you are reading or hearing and not just parrot it back.

How do you think I spend my time on this island with dreadfully slow internet connectivity, and six lousy TV channels? (only one of which, has news, and mostly Left Wing blather for the most part) Believe me, I have more time to think than many people. Is it so hard to believe that so many individuals can come to the same conclusion ON THEIR OWN?

They appear to be incapable of demonstarting that they arrived to conclusion separately. What else am I to think when all Leftists spout the same words at the same time, usually within 12 hours of each other.

From your post above I take it that you don’t watch Fox News — I think you should at least once, just to see how often the Right will resort to the same talking points, parroted by one ‘newscaster’ after the next.

I find your statements very perplexing since the left has historically been accused of being a loose affiliation of groups with similar goals but nonetheless lacking cohesiveness and organization. Whereas the right seems (to me and many others) to be a collection of groups with dissimilar/conflicting goals working together against a common enemy (liberals).

– Since there are laws on the books that do not allow illegals to work, or allow employers to hire illegals for work, WHY ARE WE DEBATING THE SUBJECT? Most of us would not welcome a flood of people the size of those coming from Mexico from China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Somolia, etc, etc, so why must we endure it from Mexico. Is it because they are a border country?

–My opinions do not vary by country. I am not necessarily a fan of the employer restrictions. I do not have an issue with non-citizen workers. I think the process needs to be simplified drastically. Not only would a removal of drug laws reduce the border violence, but a reduction of immigration restriction would as well. There would be no pawns to be used by the violent if the pawns were able to come through legally.

– Why is America expected to stray from the norm when every other country in the world gets to set and live by it’s own standards?

–Because we care about the rest of the world and they do not care about us. We need to tell them to all kiss our collective ass.

– Why do a great majority of people (especially those under the age of 35) expect the government to intercede in things like the economy, failing businesses, ecology, poor people, other countries, obesity and education, but at the same time want the government to stay out of drug enforcment, freedom of speach, clothing standards, music, pronography, etc, etc?

–indoctrination by the educational system, and by the gradual creep of government and its affects on the culture. People of the older generation accepted government handouts and help, thus the next generation learned that was the norm.

– Why do some people believe Health Care is a right, but owning firearms is not?

–See above. Also, fear. Its all about the average american having the spine of a slug. We are scared of pain and death, so we want health care and we want no guns. I say “we” referring to the spineless wonders, not you or I.

– Why do some people believe that those with more money should pay more to help those with less?

–Class warfare, and a complete lack of understanding of business and what it takes to be successful. People think its all luck and who you know, because that is what they have been taught. Do not underestimate the power of indoctrination in our schools, especially since we have been also told that education is the key to success, so parents send their kids to be indoctrinated thinking they are doing a good thing. They pay through the nose to ensure the demise of society.

– Why do some people who reside in the West Coast and/or Northeast believe they are more in tune with critical social issues than those that live in the South, West or Midwest?

–They are more the “intellectual type”, who follow the patterns of the educated elite. They think they are smarter because they mimic those that educated them. The media and so forth reinforces this academic aristocracy based view.

– Why do some people believe that putting different people in elected positions is going to suddenly fix a government that has been FUBAR’ed since the late 1920′s, especially since those elected and those running for election have been part of the FUBAR’ed government for the majority of their adult life?

–Propoganda and false hope, based on false blame and a desire to believe the best of our government. Also, the tendency of most to ignore politics until voting time and then get so annoyed by the process that they give up, leaving the lemmings to do all the voting. It is those who ignore the process that allow the fools to choose which criminals run the country.

– Why do we trust a Media that for the last 75 years has been reporting everything from a bias perspective, or just not reporting it all?

–Repetition. It is so prevelant that most do not see anything else. Repetition and immersion are excellent brainwashing techniques.

– Why do we believe that voting in a Democracy will change anything?

–Because it is supposed to, and we are taught it will. And it would, if the Republic were following its own structured guidelines and laws.

– Why do we allow those we elected to represent us, mis-represent us?

–Fear and apathy. We don’t want the confrontation that would be required to fix the problem.

– Why do we care if students want to form prayer clubs, gun clubs, hunting clubs, glee clubs, history clubs, or any other club that doesn’t pomote violence?

–We don’t, that is the media and a few screwballs. We think we care because we are told everyone else does.

– Why do we ignore the needs of our veterans returning from Hell, but allow individuals like Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Reed, obama, etc, etc, etc get away with treason?

–Apathy and a belief that we cannot fix the issue, also a convenient blind eye is turned to the veterans so that we don’t have to think about it because that takes effort and it might make us feel pity for another human, that might be stressful and pop our little baloons.

– Why do we allow those we elected to belittle us when we object to their ideals and policies?

–We do not, but again, the media does and we are too scared to stand up against what we think is a majority opinion. We are friggin’ sheep.

As congressional Democrats press on with their attempts to get financial legislation reform passed, a key component has been lacking from the debate: how to handle the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE).

Although some Republican lawmakers have cried foul over the fact nothing has been included in a bill sponsored by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Chris Dodd, (D-Conn.), President Barack Obama’s administration has vowed to pursue reforming the GSEs … eventually.

However, despite a long history of alleged corruption, close ties to the current administration and a recent $10-billion extension of “emergency aid” to Freddie and Fannie in the deadest possible part of the news cycle, these two entities have gone relatively unnoticed by the news media, with a lion’s share of the spotlight given to Wall Street bogeymen like Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS).

Reporting on the roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been almost nonexistent, particularly in the broadcast media. Since March 28, ABC, CBS and NBC put together only broached the topic of GSEs one time. But Goldman Sachs and the circumstances surrounding an SEC investigation were mentioned 37 times.

Even in the cable media, home of the 24-hour news cycle, when GSE-reform is discussed, it’s dismissed as some sort of Republican talking point or distraction.

Background: Freddie and Fannie ‘Proximate Cause’ of Crisis

Though the attention has been lacking, there is a strong to be made that these government-sponsored enterprises are at least somewhat, if not largely, culpable for the economic crisis.

According to the “Financial Services Committee Republican Plan for Reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” posted on March 26, it’s not just the collapse in housing these GSEs are responsible for, but the entire economic crisis.

“The evidence is clear that the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) – specifically, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – were the proximate cause of the economic crisis,” the Republican plan explained. “Ultimately supported by the taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, Fannie and Freddie permitted their executives, investors, and creditors to make outsize profits when times were good, but stuck taxpayers with the tab when the housing bubble burst. Fannie and Freddie’s access to cheap capital and the taxpayers’ pocketbook helped run up housing prices to unsustainable levels, while crowding out lenders and investors who could not afford to compete against these government-sponsored juggernauts.”

And as Business & Media Institute adviser John Lott pointed out on his blog on April 7, the notion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played pivotal role in the financial isn’t just a Republican talking point, but also one that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified to in front the Financial Crisis Inquiry on April 7.

No, they want a large dependent class. If they get it by a large block of immigrants, it will suit their needs. If they get it by expanding welfare and other entitlements, that’s slower, but still will give them complete power for the foreseeable future. Whoever “rewards” the dependent, will be elected, until there is a revolt, or a collapse.

We are stuck playing a “rigged” card game. They make the rules and change them during the game, and there is no limit on how many cards they play. Immigration is just the card we are looking at today. The gov. took over student loans with healthcare. No limit on how many jokers they play either.

a memorandum submitted as evidence from Lord Lawson of Blaby, chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was in response to four very significant questions from the investigating committee. This memo confirms the claims by many global warming skeptics that the scientists at CRU were trying to hide data and silence the skeptics. The questions asked by the investigative committee are as follows:

(i) Have the CRU scientists been manipulating the raw surface temperature data in a way that is less than wholly objective and dispassionate?

(ii) Have they refused dissenting scientists and/or other outsiders with a bona fide interest in global warming access to the raw data, contrary to the proper canons of scientific research and to the demands of scientific integrity?

(iii) Have they been improperly seeking to avoid answering Freedom of information Act requests?

(iv) Have they actively sought to prevent papers by dissenting scientists, statisticians, or other informed commentators from being peer-reviewed and/or published, again contrary to the proper canons of scientific research and to the demands of scientific integrity?

Lord Lawson’s response to these questions is damning:

We believe that there is compelling evidence both independent of the leaked email exchanges and arising from those emails to suggest that the answers to (ii), (iii) and (iv) above are clearly ‘yes’.

However, Lord Lawson chooses his words more carefully in answering the smoking-gun question at the top of the list:

Moreover, we are disturbed by the CRU scientists’ treatment of the so-called divergence problem. That is the fact that, for that period of time where both a proxy global temperature series and a recorded global temperature series are available, the two series markedly diverge. This clearly suggests either that the proxy series is unreliable or that the recorded series is unreliable (or possibly both: the point is that they cannot both be true). The CRU scientists’ attempt to hide the problem by concealing the divergence demonstrates, we believe, a lack of integrity.

There are worthy comparisions between what the Dems are doing and what the Nazis did, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. It isn’t slinging mud. Whan the Republicans share ideology with the Nazis, feel free to call them on it. Yes Nazis enforced their laws and Repuclians support enforcing ours, thus Repubs and Nazis share an idea. Whoever it is that is really calling the shots (hint: its not Obama, he’s just the publlic face), is also using tactics that Lenin did. Hilter used race like Lenin used class. Its seems we have a bit of both being used here. Yesterday you said that both sides are playing the public for suckers and keeping Americans divided and fighting each other. I agree. Why can’t you see what’s been done?

As for the article and your claim of no cherry picking, lies by ommision doens’t work with me. Just ask ex husband number three. All the stupid stunts he pulled he justified by saying “I didn’t lie”. Technically, he didn’t, he was just dishonest. In the end though, it caught up with him.

The president is repeating a blatant falsehood about the Arizona law that has gained instant currency in the establishment press and leftist circles. It has no basis in fact, or in the legislation Grand Canyon State Governor Jan Brewer recently signed.

You don’t have to go any further than the 20th line of the law (down loadable at this Constitution Law Prof Blog ) to see that Obama and his fellow critics are wrong:

As for your ex, he probably just didn’t understand what you were asking.

NINE WORDS WOMEN USE

(1) Fine: This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.
(2) Five Minutes: If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.
(3) Nothing: This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in fine.
(4) Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don’t Do It!
(5) Loud Sigh: This is actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to # 3 for the meaning of nothing.)
(6) That’s Okay: This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. That’s okay means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.
(7) Thanks: A woman is thanking you, do not question, or faint. Just say you’re welcome. (I want to add in a clause here – This is true, unless she says ‘Thanks a lot’ – that is PURE sarcasm and she is not thanking you at all. DO NOT say ‘you’re welcome’ . That will bring on a ‘whatever’).
(8) Whatever: Is a woman’s way of saying F– YOU!
(9) Don’t worry about it, I got it: Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking ‘What’s wrong?’ For the woman’s response refer to # 3.

Ok, here is the problem with the immigration stuff. This seems far too much like a back door way to lead to “let me see your papers”. I don’t care about the profiling stuff, if the stats fit, then deal with it. If you look like you fit the profile, then be active about working against the people in your profile, help change the culture by discouraging actions that make your “group” look bad. What I do care about is that this thing will get us to a national ID card far faster than the Patriot Act ever could have, and it will be with the supposed supporters of freedom. Why does freedom get thrown out of the window on this one issue? Immigration is so completely inconsistent with the principles of freedom that so many conservatives and even some libertarians embrace. The liberal side is also inconsistent, pushing hard for freedoms for illegals that they don’t want citizens to have. It is friggin’ mind blowing.

This isn’t an issue with the Arizona law, its and issue with the federal law they are trying to enforce. We will not be able to find a solution to the immigration problem without changing the immigration laws themselves. We cannot have it both ways. And all of those who want to return to the constitutional days when we were really free, myself included, need to remember that our immigration at that time was wide open. And don’t give me that “the world has changed” crap, thats what they are using to try to take my 2nd amendment rights. I will fight that argument with everything in me. Be consistent, do you want freedom or dont you? Are you so scared of immigrants that you would take away freedoms that are supposed to be for all mankind? Those who value security over freedom deserve neither.

We need the military to assist the property owners on the border, because their property and freedoms and their very lives are being threatened. We need to stop the funding of violence by getting the government out of the drug business and putting such decisions back in the hands of the individual. We need to stop giving the drug cartels willing participants desperate to come here by making it realistic to get into the country and work. Those things will solve the issues D13 has told us about, and they do need to be solved, the violence must be met with overwhelming force and stopped. American’s are dying down there.

As for the immigrants themselves, if you cannot compete with them, get better at your job. If you don’t want them taking advantage of social programs, fine, make it so that anyone getting government money has to prove citizenship and jump through a billion hoops, or, better yet, remove the social programs so that they are not a drain on society. If people are still coming over the border in the wrong way, then they are likely trying to be here to do nefarious things. As it stands now, it is a small percentage of illegals doing this. If we reform the laws, then the percentage will change, and I will have no problem going after the undocumented and the sneaky, because there will be no reason to be sneaky unless you are here to do harm to others.

Arizona is not the problem, the Fed is. If the Fed changes their laws, then Arizona’s new laws will be fine still, because there will be no laws being unenforced, so there will be no need to ask for proof of citizenship.

consistency people, either support freedom or don’t. As for me, I live free or die, damn the consequences.

Broder curiously chose to ignore the fact that Barack Obama was, for all intents and purposes, the fateful deciding vote as reported by the late Robert Novak in June 2007:

Democrat Byron Dorgan, who seldom has tasted legislative success during 15 years in the Senate, scored a dubious victory last week. He was able to insert a poison pill in the immigration reform bill that aimed at emasculating the essential guest worker program. The 49 to 48 vote that passed Dorgan’s amendment included surprising support from two prominent first-term senators: Jim DeMint, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, and Barack Obama. […]

The Dorgan amendment is a classic poison pill: designed to kill, not improve, the bill. Its passage makes resurrection of immigration reform all the more difficult. Decisive votes by DeMint and Obama were not appreciated by the bipartisan group that had crafted the bargain intended to secure America’s borders while permitting an orderly flow of temporary workers. […]

Obama’s vote for the poison pill was unexpected because he had participated, uninvited, one time in the bipartisan negotiating process. He had demanded and won a provision permitting immigrants to stay on the job after being designated “not employable” by the government under the new system until their appeals were exhausted. Obama’s support for the Dorgan amendment then infuriated Republicans in the negotiating group who had opposed the concession to the presidential candidate.

Sometimes when arguing an issue that is of direct and current status, it is NOT POSSIBLE to be consistent.

This is a prime example.

As I pointed out above, my OWN VIEW is that ALL current immigration law is STUPID. That goes for immigration law in this country AND IN EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE GLOBE.

There exists NO COUNTRY that has totally free and open borders. NONE.

As such, do you want me to consistently, always, frame my argument in terms of freedom? Sure, I can do that, but sometimes it is also useful to frame my argument in terms of the way things actually are now, and what is the best possible solution given that there is a snowball’s chance in hell of any sort of solution even vaguely resembling freedom actually being enacted.

I also frame my arguments about illegal immigration the way that I do because it makes it easy to point out the complete hypocrisy of those “on the left” because it makes it plain as day that they do not favor equal enforcement of existing laws for all people. They want one set of laws for people who are citizens, and a different set of laws for people who are NOT citizens. I find it fun to mess with them this way, because they ususally fail to realize how silly they look when they argue this way.

All of that being said, YES, all immigration law is STUPID the way that it currently is now. Under the current circumstances, I cannot fault Arizona for passing a law that basically says that they are going to enforce existing Federal Law.

Your point about national ID cards or chips or whatever is well-taken though, it could easily be a consequence of our current ill-conceived immigration laws.

I get that. The problem is, I cannot justify some of the suggested measures if they are not the best path for the future. I know we need the military to defend those on the border, but that is because of the violence on the border, not the immigrants.

This was sent to me a few days ago, but just now thought of putting it up.

Subject: A Liicense required for YOUR house???

Interesting…This is another thing they want to make into a law…read below….

Don’t want to be bothered with “Political stuff?” You’d better read this one. It will come as a huge shock to you if you aren’t informed as to what Obama is up to, and it has already passed one hurdle. It will take very little now to put it into actual law!! YOU’D BETTER WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!

So you think you live in a free country. Boy have you got a surprise coming.

A License Required for your HOUSE?

If you own your home you really need to check this out. At the end of this email is the Google link to verify. If the country thinks the housing market is depressed now, wait until everyone sees this. No one will be buying homes in the future.

We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and are being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington ! This Congress and their “experts” are truly out to destroy the middle class of the U.S.A.

A License will be required for your house…no longer just for cars and mobile homes….Thinking about selling your house? Take a look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and Trade bill). This is unbelievable! Home owners take note and tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!

Beginning one year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this “Cap & Trade” bill, passed by the House of Representatives. If it is also passed by the Senate, it will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure that these voters will get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. And Mrs. Middle Class have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house without some bureaucrat’s OK. Yes, you read that right.

The caveat (there always is a caveat) is that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (“mobile homes”) are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.

To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be required to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act, to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.

Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell.

And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009”) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he/she alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress. Then the Administrator can set new standards every year.

The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 – Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America .

Beginning one year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with its energy and water efficiency standards. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (expen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody!

The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements IF you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (that includesYOU?) and prevent you from qualifying for the grants.

Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.” Sect. 204 – Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help the EPA. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.

Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year.

But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California ? It would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate.

Expect the same from the home labeling program. Sect. 304 – Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that one year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.

Our Homeschool Society is NFP. We do sell products and services. We exist because of ideology. The selling of products and services is “a service” – any one can get exactly the same product and service without the Society

For Profit — an organization established for the primary purpose of making a profit (as in money).

And before you say it, yes insurance companies (as I’ve so often said) have done tremendous good – they seek to maximize profit but also do provide a very valuable service and often very successfully so. However, when the primary motive is to make money it leads a company to take shortcuts in certain instances, to deny treatment, to kick people off of their plans years after paying premiums for an innocent mistake in an application, etc. etc.

I always thought profit was a surplus related to net expenditures and gross income.

It is my belief that health care (and other public services) should not waste money by trying to increase profits. They should be managed efficiently and without waste as much as possible. Any surplus should either be refunded to the taxpayers or used to offset future costs. Refunds would probably make people happier, but a transparent savings system would probably be more prudent.

In a discussion of Free Market Philosophy, however, “profit” is connotative of “success”. You earn a profit only if you solve customer problems (that is, they buy at the price you sell).

The amount of profit indicates the ability to do that. Cheap means “not so much”, since a small increase in price loses customers.

High profit means a better success at answering customer needs/desires. iPhone for example vs. a POTS – former is priced in the multi-hundreds $ for something that probably “costs” less than a hundred to make. The latter you can find pretty much in every garbage dump and still in working order…

It is my belief that health care (and other public services) should not waste money by trying to increase profits.

“Waste money” by “solving problems better”????

They should be managed efficiently and without waste as much as possible.

Free market companies have a high tendency to focus on these items, with either great success or stern consequences.

Any surplus should either be refunded to the taxpayers or used to offset future costs.

In a free market economy the surplus is paid to the owners and investors who tend to expand the business into new opportunities and services to meet customer needs.

With your plan, you guarantee stagnation.

We are fortunate that this was not implemented a hundred years or so ago, or we’d still be doing surgery with whiskey as the anesthesia.

Refunds would probably make people happier, but a transparent savings system would probably be more prudent.

Well then how will new health care treatments be developed Chris? Profit is what funds research and development and innovation in the industry. Are you happy with health care remaining exactly where it is now, no further advances?

Health care advances will be funded in much the same way they are now: research funds will be part of the budget. People will still get paid to do research. All I’m saying is that it isn’t necessary to charge more for services than face value.

Much like BF said above, surplus funds will be reinvested or refunded (like stockholder dividends). The size of the budget will be determined by how much revenue is generated through taxes.

Come on now, you know that’s not what I mean. Any institution can be mismanaged. Governments are no different than businesses in that respect. Proper management has everything to do with funding successful programs and cutting out wasteful or poorly performing ones. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, but if it is cut your losses and move on.

8. Funding of a $168,300 SBA loan to the Escape Massage parlor in Midlothian, VA.
(Damn, how did I miss doing the research on that one)

7. Funding a $447,492 Univ. of North Carolina study on the development and use of “African American English” amongst 70 adolescents.

6. $10,346 for a heating and cooling company to provide “escort services” for other companies performing a laser scanning survey at a courthouse in Honolulu, Hawaii.

5. An academic study comparing outcomes of the concurrent and separate use of malt liquor and marijuana ($389,357).

4. A $225,000 study at Ohio State University on the relative and combined impacts of air pollution and a high fat diet on obesity development.

3. A $712,883 research grant to develop “machine-generated humor“. Project will design artificially intelligent “comedic performance agents”, and will “deploy them both on and off-line for the enjoyment and illumination of everyday citizens”.

2. A $54 million project to relocate one bridge for the Napa Valley Wine Train (!) in order to mitigate the possible impact of a “100 year storm event”.

And the number one most ridiculous use of stimulus funds…

1. $9.3 million (!) to fund the design and development of a “coordinated colony of robotic bees“!

Either it occurs by the designs of the free market or it is by political manipulation.
Global Warming is an excellent example of precisely such manipulation. The funding of junk science has cost the nation billions.

Any institution can be mismanaged.

As I repeat often,

…either economic decisions are made based on economics or on politics.

If it is by politics, it cannot achieve a better outcome economically.

Governments are no different than businesses in that respect.

They are far worse.

Governments are predicated on violence.

Free markets are predicated on voluntary trade.

Proper management has everything to do with funding successful programs and cutting out wasteful or poorly performing ones. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, but if it is cut your losses and move on.

Honestly, Chris, what government program has ever been canceled due to mismanagement! Indeed, most common it demands more funding to fix its ‘problem’ – which only compounds it.

We get the government (and businesses) we deserve. As long as we keep electing shills who only pretend to have concern for their constituents, then we’ll continue to have mismanagement. Likewise, as long as we keep shopping at places that drive out small businesses and exploit our workers then we must suffer the consequences.

Research priorities should be set based upon demonstrated need, not potential for price-gouging. It is up to citizens to ensure that this is the case.

1) It is difficult to “demonstrate the need” for an unheard of product or process. Inventors and creative persons do this, not government panels.

2) Governments are inflexible and slow moving by design, but that makes them very bad at market regulation and innovation. I can point out many examples, one of the best is flourescent lighting. The market is finally shifting to LED, and would have long ago had the government not pushed flourescent, a much more dangerous, expensive, and less efficient type of lighting than LED. Government priority on research sucks. Period.

3) Centralized management of pools of money always come with more risk of corruption and mismanagement than market forces where monies are managed in a more distributed manner.

4) Collective decisions of individuals is more quick to adjust to technological changes and the changes in available resources, and decisions are generally better than panels of so-called experts.

5) I do not say there is never a bad decision or trend in the market, but based on history, I would say it beats the living crap out of the government track record.

Regulating Wall Street … here’s where the ugly Knuckster’s blood boils over. I can’t help but think back to when President Obama stood on his pulpit and decried earmarks, then signed a spending bill containing 9,000 of them.

The too big to fail banks that bankrupted the country with the blessing of a government that refused to watch what was going on were then gifted hundreds of billions of our dollars without any stipulations to protect any of the workers they were firing willy-nilly. They continued to outsource and executives most responsible for the bankruptcies were permitted to gift themselves record bonuses (again, our money). The icing on the cake (for me) was when the Obama administration permitted the bailed out companies to walk away from $38 billion in tax payments. Nobody told Charlie and Ann Marie to ignore the taxes we had to pay last year.

Now Obama wants banking regulation passed? The field has left the gate, Fredo. They’re already in the winner’s circle sipping bubbly paid for by us (not you, us).

And while we’re at it, whatever happened to repealing don’t ask/don’t tell? What, you no longer need a temporary polling boost?

Way to change Washington.

Call me skeptical, but something tells me the regulation (if we ever see it) will be something Wall Street can live with fine and dandy (sort of the same way insurance companies were gifted 33,000,000 new customers) – Obama’s one accomplishment (and insurance companies couldn’t be happier).

Which begs the next question for DOC: What are you complaining about? This guy couldn’t be more like George Bush. He spends, he doesn’t regulate, he feeds the obscenely wealthy from our trough and he’s FOCKING clueless!

The ugly one has a solution. It’s an old one some of yous amici who’ve been here for a while already know. It’s simple and it wouldn’t cost much at all.

Haven’t posted much lately, as my mind is quite busy dealing with currents events locally. I have however, been reading every post and keeping up to date here at SUFA. First, I’m glad to see Chris back and engaging in debate, You have much to offer Chris, even if few agree with you, your input is vital to the process of all of us learning.

Despite my inactivity here, I have spent much time thinking about what everyone says, and this morning, as I was at work, I remembered something that I saw posted here in the past, and/or watched on the History Channel, or both. It was a historical disertation of the many powerful empires of the past, and what they had in common shortly before they fell.

If my memory is serving me correctly, the gist of the historical story was that all the great empires had great armies, and too control the masses, these empire leaders invited and opened the gates to immigrants in mass, under the condition they served in the armies. This was very successful for the Kings and such, as their armies had no “patriotic” feelings for the natural citizens that the Kings were trying to control. Many “natural” citizens died at the hands of these armies, so the Kings could maintain power and control.

I’m sorry I cannot present links and such, as I’m writing from memory, and this could be an entire article. But I would ask everyone to check these historical events out, and compare them to the current push for amnesty, combined with Obama’s desire to have a National Security Force “as strong as the miltary”.

I do spend a lot of time om that site. I believe you had a long post on this in the past, and not much later I watched a show on THC about the same thing. Tonight, I’m packing for the weekend in the woods, have a barn to build, and can’t spend much time on documentaries, but it would make for a good guest article. My assumption is that you agree with what I said, and is pertinant to the immigrant issue, in some way?

That’s BULLSHIT and you know it Buck. Several people here ALWAYS insult me and BUTT in to do it, but can rarely PROVE me wrong. YOU ARE INDOCTRINATED, and you believe that makes you smart. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. I can defend myself WHEN required and DO, DAMN RIGHT, because I know how to do it as well as you, and your small minded friends. Now, don’t be ragging on me when I figure out that your buddy Chris there gets his jollies by insulting people and pretending he’s oh so much smarter then everyone else, and I refuse to give him the satisfaction. Everytime you guys try it with me, it just convinces me how really pathetic Liberals are. You like to play your BS word games and then congratulate each other on how clever you are, but you don’t fool anyone but yourselves. So don’t give me your crap. I’m not taking it and will dish it back when I feel the need.

Actually, I’ve spent two weeks engaged in heated discussion with , what I call, socialist pigs. Heading to the mountains in the early AM to work on my pole barn for the weekend, and GET AWAY, before I shoot someone, LOL. The guys that lean left are nothing compared to what I have been dealing with lately.

My two cents is this: It’s pretty hard to debate the lefties around SUFA because they always seem to get off topic. They refuse to answer direct questions. Even when asked to directly answer a question they continue to dance. That gets very frustrating.

RUSH: And you know, folks, one of the things that really distresses me about all of this is the way Obama is playing this. He’s actually playing the race card. He’s doing two things at one time. The communists around the world always thought that they had to play off the haves versus the have-nots, class warfare. Hitler and his gang believed you did it on race, you divided people by race. Obama is doing both. Obama is playing class warfare and dividing people on the basis of race. He’s doing them both. He’s outdoing whatever Hitler and any Soviet commissar ever did, because he’s combining these two things that roil and divide a culture. (impersonating Obama) “Yeah, there’s a point you earn enough money, you have enough.”

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The Think Progress blog here is a George Soros operation, and they have a post on me today: “Limbaugh suggests Obama is touchy about Arizona law because you can’t produce his own papers.” Remember when I said that yesterday? I knew that’d tweak ’em. I knew that’d tweak ’em. They quote me as saying, “Papers = Nazi. ‘Your papers, please,’ equals Nazi. That’s why Obama using the term. I can understand Obama being touchy on the subject of producing your papers. Maybe he’s afraid somebody’s going to ask him for his,” and then they link to the audio on my website to listen to it. Then they talk about all the other “false claims,” and Snerdley said during the break, “You know, you’re going to get blowback on this comparison here to Hitler and the Soviets.” Fine! Let the blowback come. What did I say that’s wrong?

What did I say that’s not factually correct? The Soviets, the communists divided people by class. That’s how they promoted war and chaos in their culture: Haves versus have-nots. Obama’s doing that in this country. Joe the Plumber. “We wanna spread the wealth around.” Hitler, as we all know, used race as his divide and conquer technique. Well, what’s going on now here? What’s untrue about that? Did Hitler do that? Ask the Jewish people and the gypsies. Ask anybody if Hitler did it. Ask anybody if the Soviets did it. Both statements are true. Are we not being divided by class in this country? Is that not what this agenda is all about, redistribution? And Obama is throwing the race card here on this Arizona immigration bill. So let the blowback come. I am not afraid of the blowback. Truth is the truth. That’s why truth will drive liberals crazy if they listen to this show.

“I’ve had many an Obot tell me if I don’t like what their president is doing I should get out of their country.”

“I don’t care to associate with people who worship that man. There are too many of them. I don’t want to be near them.”

“So Daddy Obama confiscates from the folks that a little more than the basics and hands it to those who have less. Do you really believe that who get will be grateful and satisfied? If so, why aren’t they satisfied already? Why did they line up by the thousands wait for their portion of ‘Obama’s Stash’ as some refered to it?”

“Thank you for clarifying the whole Obama Cult for me. Now I really know how to wind up the O-Bots and watch ‘em spin. :evil:”

“EVERY O-Bot I’ve tried to talk with about Obama’s policies ALWAYS brings up Bush. That says plenty. Its just adolescent revenge. Its about getting even with the conservatives. Its foolish and destructive. You can deny this to me all you want. You can even keep denying it to your self but it won’t change a thing.”

“There you go again, whining about about Bush. You know, the more you do it, the convincing to me it becomes that I’m right. You’re still having a temper tantrum because Bush won the election back in 2000. That was 10 years ago, get over it. Sheesh.”

“Call me when you get a clue, Junior!”

“Becuase the majority of Americans have been indoctrinated for DECADES by the Left, via public education, Hollywood and the Lamestream Media. Talk about the dumbing down of America.”

You might find my style condescending or pedantic, but it is how I treat topics of importance to me. If you want me to put on a fake “aw shucks” persona I suppose I could, but that wouldn’t be honest. I’d rather just use the terms I know and do my best to explain when someone asks for clarification. BF doesn’t get upset when I use “fancy words” and if anybody knows what my insults sound like, he’s the one. We have gotten over our rocky start and try to stay as cordial as we can given our extreme differences in outlook.

Be honest with yourself and admit that you have been every bit as insulting as you think I have been. If you want to do a little cut and paste job to compare my insults with those of yours pasted above, be my guest. I think you play fast and loose with the insults and pejorative labels. Perhaps if you didn’t try to stick them to me I might not be so defensive.

I’m not sure if you realize, but we went to the same high school and have some friends in common. Why don’t you ask them if they find me insulting or condescending. I keep my claws retracted until I feel like I have been provoked. You definitely provoked me. I apologize for anything you found offensive that wasn’t a response in kind.

BF Stated:”Let’s be clear, as you already admit – it was EUROPE who chose to invade the Middle East.

As you admit, it was the CHRISTIANS making war on JEWS and MUSLIMS.”

TC replies:In 710 A.D. Islamic forces crossed the Straits of Gibraltar and swept through most of Spain and Portugal. France was invaded and one-third of it was captured. Fortunately, when the Muslim hordes were 125 miles from Paris, they were defeated by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours (Poitiers), in 732 A.D.
It took 250 to 300 years to push the Muslims OUT of Europe back to North Africa.The first Crusade was in 1090 as a direct result of the Muslims attempting to further their domination of the world through attacking Constantinople.

Nice try but at that time in history Islam did not even exist.Islam was founded in 610 Anno Domini and the people of North Africa in 500 Anno Domini at that time in history were…*drum roll* budabudabudahhbudahh…Christian Greek/Berbers.From 400 to 500 the germanic tribes were attacking this region of city states yes.At that point in time North Africa was part of the Roman Empire BF.I know you are an educated intellectual so why you persist upon misleading people in regards to the volatile nature of Islam is anyones guess.

TC:Europe was responding to the threat of the Islam conquerors who were attacking Constantinople.A christian city at the period of time leading up to the first Crusade.As I pointed out earlier Europe had already been invaded once by Islamic conquerors 250 years previously deep into france prior to this.During those 250 years there were constant encroachments by Islam and Christiandom into each others borders…

Yes we can move on as long as you concede the fact that during the period of time when Alexander the Great conquerored Persia was approximately 900 years before Mohammed sprang into existence and hence Islam was born.You are attempting to win an arguement using geographical areas of the world in correlation with religious groups influence over a span of time of almost a millenium!

Idealogically Islam and Christianity are moving down two distinct seperate paths Black Flag.
I have no problem at all admitting the atrocities of christiandom throughout human history.These atrocities were committed by men using false christian doctrines to further their own ideals.Modern Christianity has finally been given the freedom to be defined as it was first intended without influence from a false doctrine.This has been made possible by the education of man and the translation of the original scriptures without corruption.Islams doctrine on the other hand has had no change since Mohammed first implemented it as a political/religious tool of subjugation.

The Total number of deaths for WWII is widely believed to be around 56 million not the figures given above.

According to the Atomic Archives the total casualties for Hiroshima were 66,000 dead and 69,000 injured and for Nagasaki 39,000 and 29,000.

This number is an estimate because it is hard to take into account how many died years later as a result of their injuries. It also does not take into account the deaths of those born after the bombing, deaths that may be attributed to the radiation exposure of the parents.

The United States military came to the conclusion that more lives would have been lost to invade Japan than to use the atomic bombs.

Modern Muslims stone women that have been raped,consider women property,perform honor killings of their family,kill anyone who defames Mohammed,kill anyone who trys to leave Islam,marry children,are responsible for killing innocent women and children with terror attacks…etc.I could go on and on but there really is no point is there?I know you understand.

Yes we can move on as long as you concede the fact that during the period of time when Alexander the Great conquerored Persia was approximately 900 years before Mohammed sprang into existence and hence Islam was born.

And 325 years before Christ was born.

So what?

i>You are attempting to win an arguement using geographical areas of the world in correlation with religious groups influence over a span of time of almost a millenium!

No, I am arguing that cultures invade one another for centuries.

It is you who is trying to formant some sort of difference based on religion. It is wholly irrelevant. It is one flag over another flag.

Religion has been used by tyrants everywhere to centralize their power and influence.

It was what eliminated the Vikings – the tribes came under domination of a single ruler with the advent of Christian conversions, as an example.

Somehow you seem to believe Christians (who, IMO, hold very little to the lessons of the Nazarene) are some how “better” than others.

They are as bloodthirsty and murderous as any of them – and probably the worse of them by nearly any measure.

No, NO, and NO. The original arguement was that you had to correct someone about the history behind who attacked whom FIRST in regards to the Crusades.

Let me quote you:
BF Stated:”Be careful of your read of history – if you recall a great while back, I already had to correct someone else’s mistake about the Crusades.

The Christians invaded the Islamic territories first…”

All I did was point out that when the europeans first conquered what are considered the Islamic territories today there was no such thing as Islam in existence.As I said Alexander the Great Macedonian achieved that honor 900 years before the birth of Mohammed it was not the Germanic tribes that were the first Europeans to accomplish that feat even though they did it in North Africa as well before the existence of Islam.

Consider yourself corrected.

In regards to the Crusades the Islamic forces invaded Europe first approximately 250 years BEFORE the first Crusade, driving into the heart of France.The first Crusade was implemented to stop encroaching Islam from a request from Christian Byzantine Emperor Alexius I.

For you to be such a fan of Natural Law I fail to see how you can logically come to the conclusion that a religion with its moral base founded in Natural Law can not be better for society than a bloodthirsty cult bound to implement world domination per their very core doctrine.

Pray tell how you consider a belief system based upon the Nazarene teachings are not upheld today by devout Christians?

There are many who claim to be Christians but that number far outweighs those that truly are.

I will continue to backhand you with facts until you cease to implement your coercive wordplay upon the readers here at SUFA.

No, NO, and NO. The original arguement was that you had to correct someone about the history behind who attacked whom FIRST in regards to the Crusades.

All I did was point out that when the europeans first conquered what are considered the Islamic territories today there was no such thing as Islam in existence.

You are attempting to use the justification of one religion to attack it.

You believe your religion is “better”.

You excuse your religion, and blame another religion.

As I said Alexander the Great Macedonian achieved that honor 900 years before the birth of Mohammed it was not the Germanic tribes that were the first Europeans to accomplish that feat even though they did it in North Africa as well before the existence of Islam.

As I said, the Europeans have conquered and insulted the region for millennium – your further prove is unnecessary.

Mohammad, did what the Christians church did, centralized power of diverse independent tribes under one rule by using a religion as its centralizing force. He united the tribes purposely and with this combination created an effect resistance to the invasions of Europe (and Asia for that matter).

It could have been Odin for all that mattered, Tex. It was a tool just like Christianity is a tool.

The roots of Islam date back to the origins of the all Judaic religions, TexasChem – your complaints about it are attack YOUR religious roots as well.

In regards to the Crusades the Islamic forces invaded Europe first approximately 250 years BEFORE the first Crusade, driving into the heart of France.

The Islamic invasion of Spain was an essentially bloodless affair after the death of Godric – after years of barbarian invasions and brutual rule by the Goths, the people easily converted to Islam and the only standing civilization in the region. One reason for the rapid Muslim success was the generous surrender terms that they offered the people, which contrasted with the harsh conditions imposed by the previous Visigoth rulers.

It is considered to be the Golden Era of the Peninsula – what they call Andalus (Land of the Vandals)

Under Islamic Law, the Jews and Christians were seen as “Brothers of the Book” and religious tolerance dominated the area.

You forget that Mohammad under the Constitution of Medina codified the guarantee of religious rights to all Jews, Christians and pagans.

The basic tenants:
Rights of non-Muslims

The non-Muslims included in the Ummah (community) had the following rights:

1. The security of God is equal for all groups
2. Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.
3. Non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the Ummah and share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery between the two.
4. Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars of the Muslims

Though by today’s standards this tolerance would be seen as somewhat oppressive (special tax extracted, steeples could not be higher than the Mosques – by the standards of that day, it was a profound step for religious diversity.

Because of that, it attracted the best minds and workers. Where London was a bunch of mud huts, Cordoba had running water, in house toilets, hospitals (an Islamic invention), a welfare system (Islamic law required the rich to help the poor), universities (the University of Toledo was founded by the Muslims – specifically where all the religions could come and teach their wisdom and knowledge)

But this is the key, the invasion of other territories was not necessarily to implement by force a religion – the Islamic tolerance of all other religions would contradict this theory.

It was the rolling up of Barbarian Kingdoms and the power vacuum of the fall of Rome.

Some “Empire” was effectively going to fill that void, and it happened it was the Islamic Empire.

It was not a Religious War until the Crusades

It was the typical invasion of one people of anther’s people’s territory – where it was Persians, Greeks, Mongol’s, Romans, etc.

The Crusades were different – it invoked Holy War.

The wholesale slaughter and genocide of Jews and Muslims – in stark contrast to the tolerance the Islamic Empire had shown other people’s and their religions.

The first Crusade was implemented to stop encroaching Islam from a request from Christian Byzantine Emperor Alexius I.

For you to be such a fan of Natural Law I fail to see how you can logically come to the conclusion that a religion with its moral base founded in Natural Law can not be better for society than a bloodthirsty cult bound to implement world domination per their very core doctrine.

The bloodthirsty cult you talk of must be Christianity.

As exampled already, the Islamic Empire were the fore bringers of religious tolerance.

Pray tell how you consider a belief system based upon the Nazarene teachings are not upheld today by devout Christians?

They cheer the death of their enemies.

There are many who claim to be Christians but that number far outweighs those that truly are.

Well it’s quite obvious I have you on the ropes from reading this last ditched attempt at Taqiya that you have attempted.It was a decent feint but expect the bum rush and right cross that is coming to make you kiss the canvas.All I can say is you shouldn’t have been leading with your chin!

BF Stated:”You are attempting to use the justification of one religion to attack it.
You believe your religion is “better”.
You excuse your religion, and blame another religion.”

TC: No I pointed out that you were factually incorrect with your statement that the Christians invaded Islamic lands first.
I do not necessarily mean my religion is better I do mean that my belief system is considering what is acceptable behavior amongst Muslim society in todays world.Perhaps that would be based upon the difference in morality between my belief doctrine and theirs.
I never once have excused the wrong-doings of mislead Christian atrocities against mankind, as I stated in an above point.

BF Stated:”As I said, the Europeans have conquered and insulted the region for millennium – your further prove is unnecessary.”

TC:Well of course; but…both examples I gave were before Islam even existed!

BF Stated:”Mohammad, did what the Christians church did, centralized power of diverse independent tribes under one rule by using a religion as its centralizing force. He united the tribes purposely and with this combination created an effect resistance to the invasions of Europe (and Asia for that matter).”

TC:Yes you are correct Mohammed did.He created a religious political force to EXPAND the Islamic Empire.Which included invading Europe before the Christian retalitory Crusades.
Notice how closely Islam’s inception is associated with war. From 623 to 777, a span of 154 years, there are 83 military conflicts involving the Muslims…and that is just what I have recorded here. Is Islam a religion of peace? Muslims tell me it is. But….

By 809 The religion of peace had conquerored West to East from Western North Africa to Western China, and North to South from the southern tip of Kazakhstan to all of the Arabian peninsula in Yemen.Oh but I forgot didn’t you say Mohammed united the tribes to resist European invasion, not conquest?hrmmm…

BF Stated:”The roots of Islam date back to the origins of the all Judaic religions, TexasChem – your complaints about it are attack YOUR religious roots as well.”

TC:No the roots of Islam date back to a man that used every maneuver at his disposal to convince the polytheistic people of Mecca to embrace Islam.Islam did not come into existance until the year 610AD.That is 610 years after christianity.Christianity has no scripture referencing a man going into a cave and the angel Gabriel explaining the word of God to him to be written nor any concessions or idolatrous rituals such as making Hajj, circling the Kaaba, and kissing the black stone which are all pagan rituals that predate Islam…

BF, TC, PD, you guys done yet? My point was only that religion can be, and generally is, misused by those wielding power. That is the basic reason for a seperation of church and state. There is also the fact that certain aspects of morality are not part of natural law, depending on your definition of morality.

Without a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings, taken from Natural Law which is the belief of perfect law based on equity, fairness, and reason, by which all man-made laws are to be measured and to which they must (as closely as possible) conform, there can never be a free society as you gentlemen put forth. Without the structurally sound moral absolutes given by adhering to Natural Law it is impossible.Our current status of government is ample proof of this. Natural law is derived from the concept that the entire universe is governed by cosmic laws on which human conduct should be based, and which can be deduced through reasoning and the moral sense of what is right or wrong.

I’ve been thinking about this base principle of yours not having a right to commit violence upon a non violent man and I was wondering if you thought that it might create a thought and behavioral pattern in society similiar to the docile Elois’ from HG Wells The Time Machine?If so wouldn’t that thought process and behavior pattern leave that society open to be exploited and victimized by another society similiar to the Morlocks?I mean the Morlocks could say were peaceful, were peaceful right up until they tossed the Elois into the oven!

it might create a thought and behavioral pattern in society similiar to the docile Elois’ from HG Wells The Time Machine?

I really doubt it.

Docility is usually a manner associated with slaves.

In my experience, “docility” is the furthest adjective I could think of in describing Free men!!

I find it interesting that because you can’t use violence on others, you believe every one would wilt and become like monks in a monastery – calling each other “brother” or “sister” and aghast at even the slightest misstep.

I see it would be more like the Real “Wild” West – which wasn’t that “Wild” as in “lawless” but “untamed” nature.

I mean do you think JAC is docile?

Do you think Peter is docile?

Do you think I’m docile?

Do you believe USWep is docile?

Do you think Kent is docile?

Kent posts his pictures! Do you really believe this is a guy you want to have as an enemy or as a friend??? 🙂

You’re surrounded in examples – and I can’t find one “docile” gene in any of them!

I believe it is the other way around – it called “massive self-confidence”.

It’s a deep, deep understanding of one’s ability and strengths – and weaknesses and inability. Knowing where to make the play and where to avoid playing. Knowing that self-reliance and cooperation with others is not exclusive actions.

It’s completely understanding this mantra: What one man can do, another man can do

I mean the Morlocks could say were peaceful, were peaceful right up until they tossed the Elois into the oven!

I leave Heinlein to present the concept:You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don’t ever count on having both at once.